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