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