Kern v. Alphonso

Kern · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · December 10, 2024 · No. 1:24-cv-01195-KES-SAB (PC)

Summary

This United States District Court order addresses a pro se prisoner's civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the magistrate judge previously recommended dismissal based on the first amended complaint, the court reviewed the plaintiff's objections and found that additional factual allegations might support a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference. Consequently, the court vacates the prior Findings and Recommendations and grants the plaintiff one final opportunity to file a complete second amended complaint within thirty days.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Stanley A. Boone
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Decision date
December 10, 2024
Docket number
1:24-cv-01195-KES-SAB (PC)
Procedural posture
Plaintiff brought a pro se, in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening the first amended complaint, the court issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff objected and supplied additional factual allegations.
Standard of review
At the screening and pleading stage, pro se complaints are liberally construed and may be dismissed only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts supporting the claim.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
James Curtis Kern v. A.F. Alphonso
Disposition
vacated

Topics

section 1983pleadingscivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil rightsFederal civil procedurePrisoner litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should vacate its findings and recommendations recommending dismissal when Plaintiff's objections supplied additional facts suggesting that he might state a cognizable deliberate-indifference claim.
  2. Whether Plaintiff should receive one final opportunity to file a complete second amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The court vacated the November 25, 2024 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal because Plaintiff's objections presented additional factual allegations that could support a cognizable deliberate-indifference claim.
  2. Plaintiff was granted one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint within thirty days of service of the order.

Key quotations

may only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his [or her] claim (at 1)
an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ (at 2)

Factual background

James Curtis Kern filed a pro se § 1983 action and proceeded in forma pauperis. The court previously determined that his original complaint and first amended complaint did not state cognizable claims, but his objections supplied additional factual details suggesting that he might be able to state a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. A.F. Alphonso. The court therefore allowed one final amendment without deciding the merits of any future claims.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the action on October 2, 2024. The court screened the original complaint, found no cognizable claims, and granted leave to amend. After screening the first amended complaint, the court recommended dismissal. In response to Plaintiff's objections, the court vacated those findings and recommendations and granted one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint within thirty days.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…