United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(PC) Maldonado v. State of CA

(PC) Maldonado v. State of CA
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided April 25, 2022
(PC) Maldonado v. State of CA

Trial Court Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BILLY RAE SHANEE MALDONADO, Case No. 2:21-cv-02172-KJM-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 11 v. (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO A STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., RECOMMENDATION THAT HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 13 Defendants. FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED, OR 14 (2) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHOSE 15 ALLEGATIONS MAKE A SHOWING OF IMMINENT DANGER ECF No. 1 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff has filed a complaint, ECF No. 1, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. He is, however, a “three-striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

He has, in other words, filed three cases that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff has filed at least three cases that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim: (1) Maldonado v. Yates, No. 1:11-cv-01735-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2013); (2) Maldonado v. Trimble, No. 1:11-cv-02160-LJO-DLB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013); (3) Maldonado v. Yates, No. 1:11-cv-01885-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2014).

1 Plaintiff will still be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if he is in imminent danger of | serious physical injury. The allegations in his complaint, however, do not make that showing. I | cannot make out the substance of plaintiff's allegations because his handwriting 1s illegibly dense.

4 | Thus, I cannot conclude that plaintiff is imminent danger. I will allow him to file an amended | complaint that legibly describes his claims. I will defer ruling on plaintiffs application to | proceed in forma pauperis until either he files an amended complaint or the deadline for doing so | has passed.

8 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede | thecurrent complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en | banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without || reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is | filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, | as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s | involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended | Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 17 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an | amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects | the latter option, I will recommend that his application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied | and that he be made to pay the filing fee before this action can proceed.

21 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

73 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ April 25, 2022 □□ 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.