1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:22-cv-2157 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MONROE DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his right to access the court has been denied, he has been 19 retaliated against, and he has not received adequate mental health treatment. Presently before the 20 court is plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 34), motions for injunctive relief (ECF 21 Nos. 32, 36, 39), motion for supplies and motion for private investigator (ECF No. 35), his 22 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 34), his request to show cause (ECF No. 40), and his first 23 amended complaint for screening (ECF No. 38). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 24 will grant the motion for extension of time to file his first amended complaint, deny the motions 25 for injunctive relief without prejudice, deny the motion for supplies and motion for private 26 investigation without prejudice, deny the motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary 27 injunction, deny his request for an order to show cause, and dismiss the complaint with leave to 28 amend. 1 SCREENING 2 Plaintiff has submitted a first amended complaint to be screened by this court. (ECF No. 3 38.) Plaintiff had requested an extension of time to file his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 4 34.) The undersigned will grant Plaintiff’s extension of time to file his first amended complaint. 5 I. Legal Standards 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 9 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 10 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 12 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 13 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 14 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 15 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 16 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 17 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell 21 AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 22 (1957)). 23 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 24 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 25 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 26 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 27 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 28 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 1 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 2 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 3 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 4 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 5 or other proper proceeding for redress. 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here, the defendants must act under color of federal law. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 7 389. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 8 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 9 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 10 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 11 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 12 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 13 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 14 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 15 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 16 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 17 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 18 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 19 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 20 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 21 a. Analysis 22 Here plaintiff’s first amended complaint is 138 pages long. (ECF No. 38.) There are 23 three sections of the document plaintiff indicates are his amended complaint. (Id. at 7, 9, and 30.) 24 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 25 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any heightened 26 pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 27 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in 28 short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 1 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was 2 adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:22-cv-2157 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MONROE DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his right to access the court has been denied, he has been 19 retaliated against, and he has not received adequate mental health treatment. Presently before the 20 court is plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 34), motions for injunctive relief (ECF 21 Nos. 32, 36, 39), motion for supplies and motion for private investigator (ECF No. 35), his 22 motion for extension of time (ECF No. 34), his request to show cause (ECF No. 40), and his first 23 amended complaint for screening (ECF No. 38). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 24 will grant the motion for extension of time to file his first amended complaint, deny the motions 25 for injunctive relief without prejudice, deny the motion for supplies and motion for private 26 investigation without prejudice, deny the motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary 27 injunction, deny his request for an order to show cause, and dismiss the complaint with leave to 28 amend. 1 SCREENING 2 Plaintiff has submitted a first amended complaint to be screened by this court. (ECF No. 3 38.) Plaintiff had requested an extension of time to file his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 4 34.) The undersigned will grant Plaintiff’s extension of time to file his first amended complaint. 5 I. Legal Standards 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 9 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 10 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 12 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 13 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 14 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 15 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 16 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 17 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell 21 AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 22 (1957)). 23 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 24 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 25 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 26 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 27 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 28 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 1 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 2 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 3 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 4 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 5 or other proper proceeding for redress. 6 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Here, the defendants must act under color of federal law. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 7 389. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 8 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 9 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 10 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 11 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 12 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 13 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 14 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 15 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 16 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 17 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 18 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 19 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 20 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 21 a. Analysis 22 Here plaintiff’s first amended complaint is 138 pages long. (ECF No. 38.) There are 23 three sections of the document plaintiff indicates are his amended complaint. (Id. at 7, 9, and 30.) 24 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 25 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any heightened 26 pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 27 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in 28 short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 1 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was 2 adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff must eliminate 3 from plaintiff’s pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, 4 griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. 5 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint 6 for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) 7 (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in 8 prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s 9 pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long, rambling pleading, including many 10 defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional 11 injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely will result in 12 delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action 13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. As currently written plaintiff’s 14 first amended complaint does not provide comply with Rule 8, as it contains various unrelated 15 documents, additional motions, and the claims are not set forth in a concise and direct matter. In 16 an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure 17 the deficiencies. 18 II. Amending the Complaint 19 As set forth above, the first amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. However, 20 plaintiff will be given the option to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that in an 21 amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took 22 that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine 23 what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. The charging allegations 24 must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff 25 is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. 26 Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 27 //// 28 //// 1 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 2 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 3 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 4 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 5 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 6 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act 7 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 8 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 11 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 12 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 13 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 14 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 16 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 17 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 18 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 19 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 20 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all prior pleadings are superseded. 21 Any amended complaint should contain all of the allegations related to his claim in this action. If 22 plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against the defendant, they must be set forth in the amended 23 complaint. 24 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 25 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 26 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 27 //// 28 //// 1 Finally, plaintiff is advised that “[j]udges in the Eastern District of California carry the 2 heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources 3 to individual cases and matters.” Cortez v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1162 (E.D. 4 Cal. 2014). Plaintiff should file a complaint that contains the allegations necessary to properly set 5 forth his claims; filing an excessively-long complaint will delay the court’s handling of his case. 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 7 Plaintiff has requested injunctive relief in several motions. (ECF Nos. 32, 36, 39, 40.) 8 Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause directly discusses and addresses his concerns 9 brought up within his motions for injunctive relief so it will be addressed within this section. The 10 court will set forth the standards applicable to injunctive relief and address the allegations in each 11 motion individually. Plaintiff’s motions request relief as he does not have access to the court and 12 does not want to speak with his social worker. The motions requesting injunctive relief will be 13 denied without prejudice as the motions do not state what relief plaintiff would like the court to 14 grant. 15 I. Legal Standards Relative to Injunctive Relief 16 A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 17 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 18 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 19 Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 20 hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 21 Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 22 Alternatively, under the so-called sliding scale approach, as long as the plaintiff 23 demonstrates the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm and can show that an injunction is in the 24 public interest, a preliminary injunction may issue so long as serious questions going to the merits 25 of the case are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for 26 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the 27 “serious questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable 28 after Winter). 1 The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 2 render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 3 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed. 2014). Implicit in this required showing is 4 that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the 5 claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. 6 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 7 injunction must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court 8 finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 9 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Further, an injunction against individuals not parties to an action is 10 strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 11 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . . . resulting from litigation in 12 which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).1 13 Further, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate until the court finds that the 14 plaintiff’s complaint presents cognizable claims. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 15 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal 16 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; [however] it may not 17 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 18 II. Analysis 19 Plaintiff filed documents requesting injunctive relief and T.R.O asserting he has been 20 forced to receive unwanted medical treatment and he does not have access to the courts. (ECF 21 Nos. 32, 36, 39, 40.) For a motion for injunctive relief to be granted Plaintiff must show “he is 22 likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 23
24 1 However, the fact that injunctive relief is sought from one not a party to litigation does not automatically preclude the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16519(a) permits 25 the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and 26 preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 27 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. 28 United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 1 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 2 public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a 3 request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be 4 imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 Here, Plaintiff has not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits or likely to suffer irreparable 6 harm. Plaintiff has been able to access the courts through the pendency of this case. This is 7 shown through Plaintiff’s numerous filings since January 2024: 8 • ECF No. 32 Motion for Injunctive Relief, 1/29/2024; 9 • ECF No. 33 Objections to (ECF No 31) Order and Request for Guardian Ad 10 Litem, 1/29/2024; 11 • ECF No. 34 Motion for Extension of Time to file an Amended Complaint, 12 2/8/2024; 13 • ECF No. 35 Motion for Supplies and Motion for Private Investigator, 2/8/2024; 14 • ECF No. 36 Motion for Injunction on Failure to Mail out first amended complaint, 15 2/12/2024; 16 • ECF No. 37 Supplement to ECF No. 36, 2/15/2024; 17 • ECF No. 38 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, 3/8/2024; 18 • ECF No. 39 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for Temporary Restraining 19 order, 4/1/2024; 20 • ECF No. 40 Request for Order to Show Cause, 4/5/2024; 21 • ECF No. 41 Motion for Summary Judgment, 4/29/2024; and 22 • ECF No. 42 Motion to Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment 4/29/2024. 23 It is clear from plaintiff’s filings that he believes his current conditions of confinement 24 violate his rights. However, the undersigned will deny the requests without prejudice because, 25 the undersigned cannot discern what relief he is asking the court to grant to him as the court has 26 been receiving his filings. In any renewed motion, plaintiff should state with specificity what 27 relief is sought. 28 //// 1 MOTION FOR SUPPLIES AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 2 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 3 | U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis 4 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff, has filed a motion for court-ordered legal supplies and for 5 || aprivate investigator. (ECF No. 35.) However, plaintiff has not alleged that these items have 6 | been requested from prison officials; nor that such a request has been unreasonably denied. 7 | Further, the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when 8 || authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis 9 | statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for a private investigator. See 28 10 | U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the undersigned denies plaintiffs motion for supplies and a private 11 | investigator. 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a first amended complaint (ECF No. 34) 15 | is granted; 16 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 17 | complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 18 | Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 19 | number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; 20 4. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 32, 36, 39, 40) are denied without 21 | prejudice; 22 5. Plaintiffs motion for supplies and private investigator (ECF No. 35) is denied; and 23 6. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 24 | dismissed. 25 | Dated: June 24, 2024 26 27 28 DDE Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/benn2157.3d+scrn-+pi OR re Ok a tk RATE JUDGE