(PC) Taylor v. Carbullido

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, No. 2:19-cv-2550 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J. CARBULLIDO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

23 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is before the court for screening.

24 Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendants Hodgers and Carbullido with respect to plaintiff’s allegations that they refused to permit plaintiff to solicit representation of counsel via a private telephone call. At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may proceed on the claim described above; or 2) make an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint | with respect to the other defendants and claims in a second amended complaint. If plaintiff || choses to amend a second time, he should refer to the court’s March 27, 2020 order for guidance | as the problems with plaintiff's amended complaint are generally the same as the problems with | the original.

5 Finally, plaintiff is reminded if he elects to amend that the court cannot refer to a prior | pleading in order to make the second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that || an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is | because, as a general rule, any amended complaint supersedes all other pleadings. See Loux v. | Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 21 days | within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to || proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendants Hodgers and | Carbullido with respect to plaintiff's allegations that they refused to permit plaintiff to solicit | representation of counsel via a private telephone call or wants leave to file a second amended | complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claims described || above.

17 | Dated: December 2, 2020 CA rd i / { a4 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 1 73 tayl2250.op

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, No. 2:19-cv-2152 TLN CKD P Plaintiff, v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF J. CARBULLIDO, et al., HOW TO PROCEED Defendants.

Check one: _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendants Hodgers and Carbullido with respect to plaintiff’s allegations that they refused to permit plaintiff to solicit representation of counsel via a private telephone call. _____ Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint.

DATED: 25 ________________________________ Plaintiff