Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections/Rehabilitation, et al.
This text of Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections/Rehabilitation, et al. (Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections/Rehabilitation, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD L. SEAY, No. 1:25-cv-000177-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AN 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S MARCH 3, 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 2025, SCREENING ORDER CORRECTIONS/REHABILITATION, et 15 al., (ECF No. 16) 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed August 4, 2025. 22 (ECF No. 16.) 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on February 11, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 26 On March 3, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state a 27 cognizable claim for relief, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF 28 No. 9.) 1 Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the March 3, 2025 2 order. Therefore, on May 13, 2025, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why the 3 action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 10.) After Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to 4 show cause, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending the action be 5 dismissed. (ECF No. 13.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 6 contained notice that objections could be filed within 14 days. (Id. at 11.) 7 On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 14.) 8 Therein, Plaintiff stated that he has been involuntarily transferred among different prisons and he 9 had been without his legal property. (Id.) Therefore, on July 7, 2025, the Court vacated the 10 Findings and Recommendations and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint in 11 compliance with the Court’s March 3, 2025, screening order. (ECF No. 15.) 12 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 4, 2025. (ECF No. 16.) However, as 13 explained below, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Local Rule 220. 14 II. 15 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 16 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 18 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 19 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 20 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 22 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 23 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 24 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 25 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 26 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 27 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 28 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 1 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 2 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 3 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 4 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 5 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 6 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 7 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 8 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 9 at 969. 10 III. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Local Rule 220. Local Rule 220 13 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
14 Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which 15 an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to 16 the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all 17 exhibits referred to in the changed pleading. Permission may be obtained from the Court, if desired, for the removal of any exhibit or exhibits attached to a superseded pleading, in 18 order that the same may be attached to the changed pleading. 19 Local Rule 220. 20 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint makes reference to allegations he made in his original 21 complaint, without re-stating the prior allegations in the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) 22 Indeed, on the form complaint under Claims 1 and 2, Plaintiff writes “provided during initial 23 filing.” (ECF No. 16 at 3-4.) Plaintiff may not incorporate allegations from his superseded 24 original complaint into his first amended complaint by simply referring to them in the first 25 amended complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to bring the same or similar allegations again, he must re- 26 state those allegations in the new amended complaint. Under Rule 220, the new amended 27 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 28 1 Local Rule 220. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Rule 220. Because the 2 Court cannot perform its requisite screening of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, Plaintiff shall 3 be granted leave to file a second amended complaint to address this violation. 4 As stated in the screening order, an amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 6 constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 7 allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 9 suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no 10 “buckshot” complaints). Lastly, the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 11 Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 12 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a 13 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of 14 San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ronald L. Seay v. California Department of Corrections/Rehabilitation, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-l-seay-v-california-department-of-correctionsrehabilitation-et-caed-2025.