(PC) Good v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAVON GOOD, No. 2:19-cv-2453 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On March 5, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do 19 under 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff 20 has now filed an amended complaint. 21 Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 24 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a 28 claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be MADE SLD VM EIEIO ENE MMU BO PO Te AY eV 1 | dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff one final opportunity to state a claim upon 2 | which relief could be granted in a second amended complaint. 3 In his amended complaint, plaintiff again takes issue with the fact that he has been denied 4 | aparole eligibility hearing. However, plaintiff fails to point to facts indicating he was ever 5 | entitled to such a hearing. In his second amended complaint, plaintiff should indicate specifically 6 | why he feels he is, or was, entitled to a parole eligibility hearing; why a hearing was denied; and 7 | by whom the hearing was denied. 8 Plaintiff is advised to review the court’s March 5, 2020 screening order for further 9 | instructions and guidance as to the contents of his second amended complaint. In particular, 10 | plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiffs 11 | second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be 12 | complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 13 | amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 14 | 1967). 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. 17 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 18 || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 19 | of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended complaint must bear 20 | the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure 21 | to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 22 | that this action be dismissed. 23 | Dated: June 4, 2020 dp. A. fe 24 CAROLYN K. DELANEY : 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 | 1 7 good2453.14(2) 28