The following excerpt is from Sekona v. Perez, 1:19-cv-00400-NONE-GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. 2020):
Plaintiff must demonstrate in his amended complaint how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is
Page 21
involved, or how implementation of the underground regulation caused violation of his rights.
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot" complaints).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.