Mario Patino v. D. Dominguez et al

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO PATINO,
CDCR #F05346,
Plaintiff,
vs.
D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-0589-BAS-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 8(a) and 10 AND
FOR FAILURE STATE A CLAIM
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) AND 1915A(b)
BACKGROUND
Mario Patino (“Patino” or “Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently confined at Centinela
State Prison (“CEN”), is proceeding pro se with a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.1 This Court screened Patino’s original complaint and dismissed it for failure to
state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his pleading and,
after two extensions of time (ECF Nos. 15, 17), Patino has filed a First Amended
1 This case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
November 22, 2024. (See ECF No. 1.) That court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on January 24, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) On March 10, 2025, however, that court found venue was
proper in the Southern District of California and transferred the case to this Court. (ECF No. 10.)
Case 3:25-cv-00589-BAS-GC Doc 19 Filed 02/04/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the
FAC without prejudice.
SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) AND § 1915A(b)
A. 	Legal Standard
As with his original complaint, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must
screen his FAC and sua sponte dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and
§ 1915A(b), to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages
from defendants who are immune. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2010). “The standard for determining whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint to “contain sufficient
factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). While detailed factual
allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim. Id. The “mere
possibility 	of 	misconduct” 	or 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed 	me
accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
B. 	Allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC
Patino alleges very few facts in his FAC. He states that on October 18, 2023, a
correctional officer “removed [his] religious necklace” without a “valid or security
justification.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.) He states the necklace holds significant religious meaning
for him and is “a required article of faith” for his religious beliefs. Id.
Patino claims that the removal of his necklace was in violation of his rights under
the 	First 	Amendment, 	the 	Religious 	Land 	Use 	and 	Institutionalized 	Persons 	Act
(“RLUIPA”), and California state regulations. (Id. 	at 2–3.) He seeks a declaratory
judgment, an injunction ordering the return of his necklace, and unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. (Id. at 5.)
Case 3:25-cv-00589-BAS-GC Doc 19 Filed 02/04/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. 	Discussion
1. 	Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10
The FAC must be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 10. First, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules requires that each complaint filed
in federal court contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As noted above, detailed factual allegations
are not required but, at a minimum, a complaint must allege enough specific facts to
provide both “fair notice” of the particular claim being asserted and “the grounds upon
which [that claim] rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007)
(citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (stating that
the 	Rule 	8 	pleading 	standard 	“demands 	more 	than 	an 	unadorned, 	the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). The purpose of Rule 8(a) is to ensure that a complaint
“fully sets forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail
to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996).
Here, Plaintiff’s FAC violates Rule 8 because it fails to give any defendant adequate
notice of the claims against them. As noted above, Plaintiff purports to assert three claims.
(See ECF No. 18 at 2–3.) However, no names are mentioned in the factual summary or in
the section where Plaintiff sets forth these three claims. Indeed, no name is mentioned in
the body of the FAC. (See id.) The FAC’s caption lists only “D. Dominguez, et al.
DEFENDANTS.” (Id. at 1.) And in the section of the FAC entitled “Parties,” Plaintiff
merely states “Defendants are prison officials and/or employees of Centinela state Prison
who were responsible for or directly involved in the removal and withholding of Plaintiff’s
religious necklace.” (Id. at 2.) Without a clear indication as to which defendants are being
sued on which respective grounds, as well as specific allegations showing what each
Defendant did to violate Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff cannot proceed in this action. As stated
in this Court’s order dismissing the original complaint, an amended complaint “must be
complete by itself without reference to previous pleadings.” (ECF No. 13 at 7 (citing S.D.
Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542,
Case 3:25-cv-00589-BAS-GC Doc 19 Filed 02/04/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”)).
In addition, the FAC also violates Rule 10(a), which provides that the “[t]he title of
the complaint must name all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Here, the caption/title of
the FAC includes only one name, “D. Dominguez,” followed by “et al.” (ECF No. 18 at
1.) This does not satisfy Rule 10(a). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–-63 (9th
Cir. 1992). To the extent Plaintiff may presume the Court will infer the “et al.” in the FAC’s
caption references the other defendants named in the original complaint, it may not do so.
Id. at 1262 (stating a federal court is precluded from referencing an original complaint
which contained a caption listing other defendants because the amended pleading
supersedes the original) (citing Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1546 (“The fact that a party
was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the
original.”)).
Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) and 10(a), the FAC must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915A(b).
2. 	Dominguez
In addition, the Court notes that to the extent the FAC lists “D. Dominguez” as a
defendant in the caption, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against him because, as noted above,
he has failed to allege any specific facts as to conduct by Dominguez in the body of the
FAC. To state a plausible claim against any defendant, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297
F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations as to
each defendant sufficient to state a plausible claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. A person
may be liable under § 1983 for an affirmative act, participation in another’s affirmative
acts, or omission of an act that he is legally required to do, causing the deprivation of a
constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (citation omitted).
D. 	Leave to Amend
Case 3:25-cv-00589-BAS-GC Doc 19 Filed 02/04/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In light of the above and Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff to amend
his pleading and address the deficiencies identified above. See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d
1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without
leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not
be cured by amendment.”) (quoting Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For above reasons, the Court:
1. 	DISMISSES 	Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) in its
entirety for failure to failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and
10(a), and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
2. 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in
which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures the pleading deficiencies
discussed above. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must be complete by itself
without reference to his previous pleadings. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios,
Inc., 896 F.2d at 1546 (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”). The Second
Amended Complaint must also list the names of all Defendants Plaintiff means to sue in
the proper space in the caption of the pleading. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61.
If Plaintiff fails to timely file a Second Amended Complaint, the Court will enter a
final Order dismissing this civil action based both on failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and
failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See Lira v.
Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of
the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 4, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-00589-BAS-GC Doc 19 Filed 02/04/26 PgID.<pageID> Pg 5 of 5