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)
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?