Ahdom v. Lopez et al
Filing
78
ORDER re 77 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/13/13. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
15
) 1:09-cv-1874-AWI-BAM (PC)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
) AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
)
) (ECF No. 77)
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
)
) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
)
)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 31, 2012, the
17
Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found
18
that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, Ashby, S.
19
Lopez, Spaeth, and Schaefer for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (ECF No. 31.)
20
Following service of the first amended complaint, Defendants Chen, Lopez, Schaefer and Spaeth
21
filed an answer to the complaint on July 19, 2012, and the Court opened discovery in this matter
22
on July 23, 2012. (ECF Nos. 37, 39.)
10
11
12
13
14
23
24
25
26
BILAL AHDOM,
On November 8, 2012, Defendant Ashby filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. (ECF No. 53.)
On November 13, 2012, Defendants Shittu and Araich filed an answer to the first
amended complaint. (ECF No. 54.)
27
28
1
1
On June 26, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Ashby’s motion to dismiss and granted
2
Plaintiff leave to amend his claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth
3
Amendment against Defendant Ashby. (ECF No. 74.)
4
5
6
On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, which names
Defendant Ashby as the sole defendant. (ECF No. 77.)
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint supercedes his first amended complaint. Lacey v.
7
Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As Plaintiff only names Defendant
8
Ashby in his second amended complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiff understood that he could
9
continue to pursue his claims against all defendants following the motion to dismiss or whether
10
he intends to proceed in this action solely against Defendant Ashby. In order to proceed against
11
Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, S. Lopez, Spaeth, and Schaefer for deliberate indifference to
12
his medical needs, his complaint must have included claims against these defendants and he
13
could not rely on his first amended complaint.
14
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby directed to inform the Court within fourteen (14) days
15
from service of this order if (1) he intends to proceed only against Defendant Ashby; or (2) he
16
intends to proceed against Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, S. Lopez, Spaeth and Schaefer,
17
along with Defendant Ashby, for deliberate indifference to his medical needs and he requires
18
additional time to file a third amended complaint.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
September 3, 2013
22
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?