(PC) Rouser v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:21-cv-2206 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 18 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 8, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the 19 court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed plaintiff complaint with 20 leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 21, 2022. 21 As with the original complaint, the amended complaint is difficult and at times impossible 22 to read because of plaintiff’s cramped handwriting. From the allegations that the court can 23 decipher, the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This 24 being the case, the amended complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will be given one final 25 opportunity to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a second amended complaint. 26 Obviously, if the court cannot read the contents of the second amended complaint, it will be 27 dismissed. 28 //// ] It appears plaintiff complains about mental health treatment. Plaintiff is informed that 2 | denial or delay of medical care can violate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 □□□□ 3 || 97, 104-05 (1976). A violation occurs when a prison official causes injury as a result of his or her 4 || deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id. 5 Plaintiff also appears to complain about the processing of a prisoner grievance. Prisoners 6 || do not have “a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” 7 || Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 8 | (9th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, the prison grievance procedure does not confer any substantive 9 || constitutional rights upon inmates and actions in reviewing and denying inmate appeals generally 10 || do not serve as a basis for liability under section 1983. Id. 11 As plaintiff already knows from the court’s previous screening order, there can be no 12 | lability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 13 || defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 14 | Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 15 || are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 16 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 17 | make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended 18 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiffs amended complaint is dismissed. 21 2. Plaintiff granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 22 || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 23 || of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended complaint must bear 24 || the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure 25 || to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 26 || that this action be dismissed. 27 || Dated: March 30, 2022 / hice L/rous2206.14 DE CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE