Maloney v. Ryan et al

Filing 13

ORDER that the 9 Order filed June 20, 2013, requiring expedited briefing as to plaintiff's TRO motion is VACATED; the 12 Emergency Motion for Extended Time is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 8 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as moot; and Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint, which shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 6/28/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 Erik Scott Maloney, 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al. 16 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 13-00314-PHX-RCB(BSB) O R D E R 17 18 Background 19 Plaintiff pro se Erik Scott Maloney is confined in the 20 Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence in Florence, Arizona. 21 On February 12, 2013, he 22 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming five 23 defendants. 24 violations, as well as a violation of the Religious Land Use 25 and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). 26 those alleged violations stem from a claimed Arizona 27 Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) policy or regulation which 28 plaintiff claims does not accommodate his meal and prayer filed a three count civil rights Plaintiff is alleging various constitutional Basically, 1 requirements during the month of Ramadan. 2 order, the court ordered that only three of the five named 3 defendants were required to file an answer. 4 5) at 7, ¶ (4). 5 Director; Mike Linderman, ADOC Administrator of Pastoral 6 Activities; and Wayne Mason, East Unit Chaplain at Florence 7 Complex. 8 date, there is nothing in the record showing that any of 9 those three defendants have been served with the complaint. 10 On June 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for a In its screening See Ord. (Doc. Those defendants are Charles L. Ryan, ADOC See Co. (Doc. 1) at 3, ¶¶ 1-2; and at 2, ¶ 5. To 11 temporary restraining order “and/or” a preliminary 12 injunction.1 13 a TRO “requiring the defendants to accommodate meal 14 requirements of [M]uslim practitioners in accordance to [sic] 15 the tenets of their religion.” 16 added). Because Ramadan commences on July 9, 2013, this year, 17 Mot. (Doc. 8) at 1:25, the court ordered the expedited filing 18 of a response and reply, if any. 19 the defendants’ responses were due on June 26, 2013, due to 20 the State’s “internal administrative process[,]” counsel for 21 defendants Linderman and Ryan, Neil Singh, Assistant Attorney 22 General, did not see this court’s order until June 27, 2013. 23 Mot. (Doc. 12) at 1:21-25. 24 “Emergency Motion for Extended Time Re[:] Plaintiff’s Motion 25 for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 12). 26 Mot. (Doc. 8) at 1. The plaintiff broadly seeks Id. at 6:10-12 (footnote See Ord. (Doc. 9). Although Mr. Singh then promptly filed an In the meantime, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff Maloney 27 1 28 For brevity’s sake, hereinafter the court will refer to this as “the TRO motion.” -2- 1 filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 11).2 2 single count complaint alleges strictly a violation of RLUIPA 3 against a single defendant, Mr. Ryan. 4 that defendant Ryan rescinded an ADOC policy regarding 5 inmates’ possession of religious books, “substantially 6 burdening” the “religious exercise of Dawwah[,]” which is 7 “require[d] [of] [M]uslim practitioner[s][.]” 8 at 4:10; at 3, ¶ 3. 9 discussed below, including how the court intends to proceed 10 The plaintiff alleges FAC (Doc. 11) The ramifications of the FAC are given that recent filing by the plaintiff. 11 12 That Discussion Preliminarily, the court observes that plaintiff’s FAC 13 does not comport with LRCiv 15.1(b). 14 among other things, “a separate notice of filing the amended 15 complaint[,]” to which a copy of the amended pleading is 16 attached. LRCiv 15.1(b). 17 however. 18 Maloney also did not “indicate[] in what respect [the FAC] 19 differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or 20 striking through the text that was deleted and underlining 21 the text that was added.” That Rule requires, Plaintiff Maloney did not do that, Despite the requirements of that Rule, plaintiff See id. 22 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with that Local Rule is 23 troubling, but his situation is further complicated by the 24 manner in which he presents the FAC. 25 contains a single RLUIPA count, designated as “Count IV[,]” 26 and lists only Mr. Ryan as a defendant. FAC (Doc. 11) at 3. As just mentioned, it 27 2 28 The FAC first came to the court’s attention when it was entered the next day, June 26, 2013. -3- 1 The FAC is void of any mention of Ramadan whatsoever. 2 other hand, plaintiff’s original complaint, set forth three 3 counts, enumerated as Counts I, II, and III 4 to Ramadan, and listed five defendants, including Mr. Ryan. 5 Because the FAC does not mention any of those original three 6 counts pertaining to Ramadan, and because it begins with 7 Count IV, presumably, the plaintiff intends the FAC to be a 8 continuation of the complaint and that the two complaints be 9 read together. 10 On the – all pertaining While perhaps a logical presumption for a layperson, 11 settled law undermines such a presumption. 12 “the general rule is that an amended complaint supercedes the 13 original complaint and renders it without legal effect[.]” 14 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 15 banc) (emphasis added); see also Valadez–Lopez v. Chertoff, 16 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and 17 citations omitted) (“[I]t is well-established that an amended 18 complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 19 thereafter as non-existent.”). 20 complaint is filed, the original pleading no longer serves 21 any function in the case.” 22 WL 2020715, at *1 n. 1 (D.Hawai’i May 24, 2011). 23 Application of that rule here means that That is because Simply put,“[o]nce an amended Hasegawa v. State of Hawaii, 2011 plaintiff’s 24 FAC, which is void of any allegations pertaining to Ramadan, 25 supercedes his original complaint, which focused solely on 26 Ramadan issues. Consequently, because plaintiff’s original 27 complaint “no longer serves any function in this case[,]” it 28 cannot form the basis for his pending TRO motion seeking -4- 1 relief solely related to Ramadan. See id. Thus, the court 2 VACATES its order filed July 20, 2013 (Doc. 9), ordering 3 expedited briefing as to plaintiff’s TRO motion and DENIES 4 that motion as moot.3 5 emergency motion by Likewise, the court DENIES as moot the defendants Linderman (Doc. 12). As 6 explained below, however, because the court is granting 7 plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, this order 8 does not preclude the filing of a motion for a temporary 9 restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction at a later 10 date. 11 “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 12 procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 13 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by 14 Lacey, 693 F.3d 896; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 The court recognizes that it has a “duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally[.]” See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 393 F.3d 920, Consistent with that duty, and disregarding the 925 (9th Cir. 2003). plaintiff’s specific indication that the pleading filed June 25, 2013, is a “First Amended Complaint,” (Doc. 11), the court will briefly consider whether the FAC could, instead, be construed as a supplemental pleading. The distinction between a supplemental and an amended pleading is significant because a “supplemental pleading, unlike [an] amended pleading, does not supersede the original pleading[.]” See Gregory v. Hill, 2013 WL 2130887, at *4 n. 1 (C.D.Cal. April 5, 2013) (citing Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle, 5 F.2d 393, 393 (9th Cir. 1925), adopted by 2013 WL 2138540 (C.D.Cal. May 13, 2013). The FAC cannot be read as a supplemental pleading, however, because by definition supplemental pleadings pertain to matters that “happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d) (emphasis added). Plaintiff Maloney’s FAC pertains to a matter which occurred prior to the filing of his original complaint though. In particular, the FAC alleges a RLUIPA violation by defendant Ryan when, in January 30, 2013, he allegedly rescinded a policy “allowing for an unlimited number of religious books, provided they fit into a property box.” FAC (Doc. 11) at 3-4, ¶ 3. Plaintiff filed his original complaint after that, however, on February 12, 2013. Thus, the court declines to construe the FAC as a supplemental, rather than an amended pleading. Plaintiff therefore cannot avail himself of the rule that a supplemental pleading does not supersede the original pleading. -5- 1 Cir. 1995) (“pro se litigants are bound by the rules of 2 procedure.”). At the same time, however, the court recognizes 3 its obligation to “ensure that pro se litigants do not 4 unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements.” 5 v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996). Waters Balancing those 6 competing concerns, the court finds that “justice requires” 7 allowing plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, if he 8 so chooses. 9 10 See Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Based upon the foregoing, the court HEREBY ORDERS that: (1) the order filed June 20, 2013 (Doc. 9), requiring 11 expedited briefing as to plaintiff’s TRO motion is VACATED; 12 (2) the “Emergency Motion for Extended Time Re[:] 13 Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” by 14 defendants Linderman and Ryan (Doc. 12) is DENIED as moot; 15 (3) Plaintiff’s “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 16 and/or Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 8) is DENIED as moot; and 17 (4) plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended 18 complaint, which shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days 19 from the date of entry of this order. 20 DATED this 28th day of June, 2013. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Copies to plaintiff pro se and Neil Singh, Arizona State Assistant Attorney General 28 -6-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?