Samuels v. Ahlin et al
Filing
37
ORDER REQUESTING Clarification From Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/16/16. Thirty Day Deadline to Respond. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DOUGAL SAMUELS,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
1:10-cv-00585-EPG-PC
ORDER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION
FROM PLAINTIFF
vs.
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
This order is being issued for Plaintiff to clarify whether he intended to omit Stephen
14
Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the Governor of California as defendants in
15
this case when he filed the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall have thirty days to
16
respond.
17
I.
18
BACKGROUND
Dougal Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
20
Complaint commencing this action on April 5, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On November 2, 2012,
21
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On October 1, 2014, the Court
22
found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims in the First Amended Complaint against
23
defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the
24
Governor of California, on Plaintiff’s safe-conditions claim under the Due Process Clause.
25
(ECF No. 24.)
Plaintiff filed the
26
On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to
27
identify the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 31.) On October 9, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff
28
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe
1
1
Defendants. (ECF No. 32.) On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended
2
Complaint. (ECF No. 36.)
3
II.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
Plaintiff names eleven defendants in the Second Amended Complaint: Pam Ahlin,
5
Audrey King, Brandon Price, Robert Withrow, Karin Hundal, Ron Howard, Peter Bresler,
6
Cynthia A. Radavsky, Orange County Public Defender’s Office, Office of Patient’s Rights, and
7
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
8
Notably, the Second Amended Complaint does not name three of the defendants that
9
were named in the First Amended Complaint and against whom the Court found cognizable
10
claims under the Due Process Clause. (See Court’s Order, ECF No. 24.) The three defendants
11
omitted from the Second Amended Complaint are Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of
12
Supervisors, and the Governor of California. The Court requests clarification from Plaintiff of
13
his intentions.1
14
III.
CONCLUSION
15
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date
16
of service of this order, Plaintiff shall respond in writing to this order, clarifying whether he
17
intended to remove defendants Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the
18
Governor of California from this case when he filed the Second Amended Complaint.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 16, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff was informed in the Court’s order of October 9, 2015 that “an amended complaint
supercedes the original complaint . . , and it must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded
pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any
function in the case.” (ECF No. 32 at 4:15-18.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which does
not include defendants Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the Governor of California, is
now the operative complaint for this case.
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?