United States District Court, D. Idaho
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Jesus George
Ayala's initial Complaint as a result of Plaintiff's
status as an inmate and in forma pauperis request. Because
the Complaint did not comply with General Order 342, the
Clerk issued Plaintiff a Notice of Noncompliance and Order to
Amend, which included a copy of that General Order, and gave
Plaintiff 28 days to amend the Complaint. Dkt. 6.
Plaintiff then filed several motions, which the Court denied.
Plaintiff was, however, granted an extension of time to file
the amended complaint. Dkt. 10.
then filed an amended complaint, in which Plaintiff sought to
join an additional co-plaintiff in the case. Dkt.
11. Concluding that a multi-plaintiff, pro se lawsuit
was not the most appropriate way to litigate the claims in
the amended complaint, the Court severed the claims of the
co-plaintiff and opened a new case in which the co-plaintiff
was the only named plaintiff. Plaintiff Ayala was permitted
to proceed under this case number as the sole plaintiff.
Dkt. 13; see also Nelson v. Tewalt, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00250-DCN (D. Idaho).
Court now reviews the Amended Complaint to determine whether
it should be summarily dismissed in whole or in part under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Having reviewed the
record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters
the following Order directing Plaintiff Ayala to file a
second amended complaint if Plaintiff intends to proceed.
Court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity, as well as complaints
filed in forma pauperis, to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate. The Court must dismiss a complaint
or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual
assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other
words, although Rule 8 “does not require detailed
factual allegations, ... it demands more than an unadorned,
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts
pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant's
liability, ” or if there is an “obvious
alternative explanation” that would not result in
liability, the complaint has not stated a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678, 682
(internal quotation marks omitted). And a court is not
required to comb through a plaintiff's exhibits or other
filings to determine if the complaint states a plausible
has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed with the Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint contains few facts of its
own. Instead, the Amended Compliant attempts to incorporate
the factual allegations in the initial Complaint, perhaps to
avoid the page limitations of General Order 342. See Dkt.
such a tactic is not permitted. It is well-established that
any amended complaint must contain all allegations in a
single pleading and cannot rely upon, attach, or incorporate
by reference other pleadings or documents. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 15.1 (“Any amendment to a pleading, whether
filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must
reproduce the entire pleading as amended. The proposed
amended pleading must be submitted at the time of filing a
motion to amend.”); see also Forsyth v. Humana,
Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[An]
amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being
treated thereafter as non-existent.”), overruled in
part on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693
F.3d 896, (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Hal Roach Studios,
Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542,
1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the district court erred
by entering judgment against a party named in the initial
complaint, but not in the amended complaint).
the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The Court will grant Plaintiff 28 days
to file a second amended complaint.
Potentially-Applicable Standards of Law
of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court provides the
following standards of law that may be applicable to
Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff should keep the following