Alonso-Prieto v. Pierce, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Miscellaneous Motions (ECF Nos. 18 , 19 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/27/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIETO,

CASE No.

11

13

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS
MOTIONS

Plaintiff,

12

1:11-cv-00024-MJS (PC)

v.

(ECF Nos. 18, 19)

14
15
16
17

B. PIERCE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

18
19
20

Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

21

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on January 6, 2011 pursuant to 42

22

U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

23

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). (ECF No. 1.)

24
On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10),
25
26

without the Complaint having been screened by the Court. On August 21, 2012, the

27
-1-

1

Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but gave

2

leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second

3

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17), a motion requesting that discovery commence

4
5

(ECF No. 18), and a motion that exhibits to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint be

6

attached to the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) These two motions are

7

now before the Court.

8
9
10

The motion regarding discovery is denied. The Court has not yet identified any
cognizable claim and has not ordered service. Plaintiff will have an opportunity to
conduct discovery if and when Defendant(s) are served and appear in this action. The

11
12

Court’s First Informational Order, which was issued to Plaintiff when he filed his original

13

Complaint, specifically states, “After an answer is filed, the court will issue an order

14

opening discovery and setting the deadlines for completing discovery, amending

15

the pleadings, and filing pre-trial dispositive motions. No discovery may be conducted

16

without court permission until an answer is filed and the court issues the discovery

17

order.” (emphasis in original) (ECF No. 3.) Once the operative pleading has been

18
served and if Defendants file an answer, the Court will issue a discovery and scheduling
19
20
21
22
23
24

order which will provide the parties with time in which to conduct discovery. Plaintiff’s
discovery motion is premature.
The motion to attach exhibits, construed as a motion to supplement the Second
Amended Complaint, is denied. Amended pleadings must be complete within
themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not

25
permissible. Local Rule 220. A plaintiff may not supplement as to events occurring prior
26
27

to the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Here Plaintiff
-2-

1

seeks to impermissibly file a partial amendment supplementing the operative Second

2

Amended Complaint.

3

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

4
5

motion requesting that discovery commence (ECF No. 18) and his motion that exhibits

6

to First Amended Complaint be attached to the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.

7

19) are DENIED.

8
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

14

ci4d6

September 27, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-