(PC) Springfield v. Hudson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:22-cv-0328 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 P. HUDSON, 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 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On 19 March 16, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff compliant was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. 21 Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.1 22 The court how reviewed the amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim 23 upon which relief can be granted and therefore must be dismissed under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(a). Good cause appearing, the amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be 25 given 30 days within which to file a second amended complaint. 26 1 In the court’s March 16 order, plaintiff was informed that his amended complaint must not 27 exceed 20 pages. Despite the court’s warning, the amended complaint is 25 pages. If the second amended complaint exceeds 20 pages, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed 28 pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to follow court orders. 1 In drafting his second amended complaint, plaintiff is informed that he may, but is not 2 required, to use the court’s form-complaint for prisoners seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3 Further, as indicated before, plaintiff should omit unnecessary background information. Finally, 4 plaintiff should focus on those few incidents where he might state a claim under the terms 5 described below and omit information pertaining to incidents that cannot amount to an actionable 6 claim. 7 Plaintiff alleges he was denied mental health treatment in violation of the Eighth 8 Amendment. As plaintiff has been informed, denial of medical care can violate the Eighth 9 Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). A violation occurs when a prison 10 official causes injury as a result of his or her deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 11 medical needs. Id. A difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate 12 indifference, nor does a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or 13 extent of medical treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 14 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 In order to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must describe in more 16 particular terms than he does in his amended complaint the form of treatment he required, how a 17 particular defendant denied him such treatment and how denial of such treatment was an actual 18 cause of an actionable injury. An allegation that one form of treatment was denied by one 19 particular defendant on one occasion and then plaintiff subsequently attempted to harm himself 20 does not equate to the denial of treatment being an actual cause of the harm. 21 Plaintiff asserts he has been retaliated against for filing prisoner grievances. Prison 22 officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo 23 v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are 24 necessarily curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires a finding that “the prison 25 authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or 26 was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Id. at 532. Plaintiff bears the burden of 27 pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he 28 complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). Also, in order to state a claim for 1 | retaliation, plaintiff must point to facts indicating a causal connection between an actionable 2 || wyury and the protected conduct. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). As 3 || currently alleged, plaintiff's assertions of retaliation do not amount to actionable claims as 4 | plaintiff fails to allege actionable injury and / or “the absence of legitimate correctional goals for 5 || the conduct of which he complains.” 6 Finally, plaintiff is again informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order 7 || to make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 8 || amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 9 || asa general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 10 | 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original 11 || pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 12 | original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 13 || alleged. 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 16 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 17 || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 18 || of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended complaint must not 19 || exceed 20 pages, must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled ““Amended 20 | Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 21 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 22 | Dated: November 4, 2022 a8 } A / LA “4 23 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 spri0328.14(2) 28