From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nguon v. Virga

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 4, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0493 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0493 DAD (PC).

April 4, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the certificate portion of the request which must be completed by plaintiff's institution of incarceration has not been filled out, and plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity to submit a completed in forma pauperis application and a certified copy in support of his application.

Plaintiff's original pleading is on the form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Good cause appearing, that pleading will be dismissed and plaintiff will be granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint on the court's form civil rights complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff must name specific defendants and the amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff's rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a completed affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner; and

3. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: April 1, 2011.


Summaries of

Nguon v. Virga

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 4, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0493 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011)
Case details for

Nguon v. Virga

Case Details

Full title:HUNG DUONG NGUON, Plaintiff, v. TIM V. VIRGA, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 4, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0493 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011)