Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING First Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/29/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CDCR, et. al,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00757 JLT (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 10)

18
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983.
20
On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10) On the face page
21
of the document, Plaintiff notes,
22

25

The Court previously dismissed without prejudice the claims/facts and defendants now
again being presented (previously filed as RODRIGUEZ V. SCHWARZENEGGER, et
al., #2:07-CV-02531-ATG, dismissal without prejudice Order of October 5, 2011
(Plaintiff previously gave re-written complaint for new filing to KVSP Officer
Hefflefinger for mailing in December 2011, but recently found the Court never
received it, an [sic] now filing new re-written complaint.

26

Id. at 1. The Court has reviewed the docket in the companion case and has discovered that,

27

indeed, the Court dismissed with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. (Case

28

no. 2:07-CV-02531-ATG, Doc. 75) In doing so, the Court observed,

23
24

1

3

While Rodriguez may move for leave to amend his complaint yet again, the court
believes that further amendment at this point is likely futile. See Sisseton-Wahpeton
Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355-56 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that prior
amendment and futility weigh heavily in favor of denying further leave to amend). Any
motion for leave to amend must be filed within thirty days of the date of this order.

4

Id. After this, on November 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended

5

complaint (Doc. 77) which was denied on November 9, 2011 (Doc. 78). On December 5, 2011,

6

Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider its order denying the motion to amend (Doc. 81) and

7

the Court denied this request on December 20, 2011 (Doc. 82).

1
2

8

Review of the first amended complaint filed in this action makes clear that Plaintiff

9

seeks to pursue the same actions related to the most of the same events raised in the earlier

10

case.1 This is not permitted. Thus, the Court ORDERS this matter to be DISMISSED

11

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated:

August 29, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Sig nature-END:

9j7khijed

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Moreover, as noted by Judge Goodwin in the earlier action, the first amended complaint here continues to be a
“mishmash” of allegations and causes of action related to events spanning a decade. This is not permitted. Fed. R. Civ. P.
18.

2