(PC) Taylor v. Carbullido ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, No. 2:19-cv-2550 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. CARBULLIDO, 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. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 19 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 20 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 21 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 23 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is before the court for screening. 24 Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a 25 claim arising under the First Amendment against defendants Hodgers and Carbullido with respect 26 to plaintiff’s allegations that they refused to permit plaintiff to solicit representation of counsel 27 via a private telephone call. At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may proceed on the 28 claim described above; or 2) make an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint 1 | with respect to the other defendants and claims in a second amended complaint. If plaintiff 2 || choses to amend a second time, he should refer to the court’s March 27, 2020 order for guidance 3 | as the problems with plaintiff's amended complaint are generally the same as the problems with 4 | the original. 5 Finally, plaintiff is reminded if he elects to amend that the court cannot refer to a prior 6 | pleading in order to make the second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that 7 || an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is 8 | because, as a general rule, any amended complaint supersedes all other pleadings. See Loux v. 9 | Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 21 days 11 | within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to 12 || proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendants Hodgers and 13 | Carbullido with respect to plaintiff's allegations that they refused to permit plaintiff to solicit 14 | representation of counsel via a private telephone call or wants leave to file a second amended 15 | complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claims described 16 || above. 17 | Dated: December 2, 2020 CA rd i / { a4 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 1 1 73 tayl2250.op 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, No. 2:19-cv-2152 TLN CKD P 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 16 J. CARBULLIDO, et al., HOW TO PROCEED 17 Defendants. 18 Check one: 19 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on a claim arising under the First Amendment 20 against defendants Hodgers and Carbullido with respect to plaintiff’s allegations that they refused 21 to permit plaintiff to solicit representation of counsel via a private telephone call. 22 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint. 23 DATED: 24 25 ________________________________ Plaintiff 26 27 28