United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 1915(g)
Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. ECF No.
11. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Washington State
Penitentiary is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis; Defendants have not been served.
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders it without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa
Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore,
“[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original
complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are
waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567
(9th Cir. 1987) (citing London v. Coopers &
Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).
Furthermore, defendants not named in an amended complaint are
no longer defendants in the action. See Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
Therefore, Defendant State of Washington has been
TERMINATED from this action and Defendant
Department of Corrections has been added.
well settled that states and state agencies are not
susceptible to suit under Section 1983. Will v. Mich.
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
“Will establishes that the State and the arms
of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh
Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under section
1983 in either federal or state court.” Howlett v.
Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). Here, the Department of
Corrections is an “arm of the State.” Therefore,
the Department of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity and does not qualify as a
“person” under Section 1983. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for monetary damages
against the Department of Corrections are subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
again, a supervising state official may be liable under
§ 1983 only if he “knew of the violation[ ] and
failed to prevent [it], ” Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), or he established a custom
or policy that led to the violation. See Ybarra v. Reno
Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680 (9th
Cir. 1984); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting a supervisor can only be held
liable for his or her own culpable action or inaction). Here,
Plaintiff has presented no facts from which the Court could
infer that Defendant Keyes was aware of constitutional
violations or that any alleged violations were caused by a
custom or policy he established.
OF CORRECTIONS POLICY
challenges a Department of Corrections policy which allegedly
denies prisoners the right to apply for a social security
card if they already have more than one social security
number. ECF No. 11 at 4. Plaintiff asserts that several
social security numbers, which he claims he has never seen,
were added to his file, thus apparently preventing him from
applying for a social security card. Plaintiff makes no
assertion that he has only ever had one Social Security
number. He does not specify whether he is seeking an original
Social Security number or a replacement Social Security
speculates that upon his release from incarceration, he will
be unable to obtain a job because he was not permitted to
apply for a social security card; he will be denied food
stamps; and he will be returned to “institutional
life” with no means to support himself. He seeks $12,
000 in monetary damages.
makes no allegation that his release is conditioned upon his
possession of a Social Security number card. He presents no
facts from which the Court could infer that his post-release
employment is conditioned on his presentation of a Social
Security number card or that his Community Corrections
Officer will be unable to assist him in obtaining employment
or access to community resources. Plaintiff is free to seek
an interview with a Social Security Administration office to
cure any irregularities concerning multiple numbers upon his
presented, the allegations in the First Amended Complaint are
insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief against
the named Defendants. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 664 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED this action is DISMISSED
with prejudice for failure to state a claim against
identified Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1).
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), enacted April 26, 1996, a
prisoner who brings three or more civil actions or appeals
which are dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a
claim will be precluded from bringing any other civil action
or appeal in forma pauperis “unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is
advised to read the statutory provisions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. This dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint may
count as one of the three dismissals allowed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and may adversely affect his ability to file
IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff
at this last known address, and close the file. The Clerk of
Court is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the
Office of the Attorney General of Washington, Corrections