Glass v. Gregory et al

Filing 20

ORDER striking 16 Amended Complaint signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 7/28/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DONALD GLASS,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01703-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER STRIKING
AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.
A. GREGORY, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 16 Plaintiff Donald Glass has filed a Document entitled “Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint.” The record reflects that after screening the Complaint the Court
permitted Glass to proceed on his excessive force claim against Defendants A. Gregory
and S. Duran; in all other respects the Complaint was dismissed without leave to amend.1
Defendants Gregory and Duran have answered the Complaint,2 and the Court has entered
its Discovery and Scheduling Order.3
The Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint reveals that in addition to the
excessive force claim against Gregory and Duran, Glass attempts to assert claims against
several other correctional officials, including individuals who were not named in his
Complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is also alleges facts and legal theories that were
not alleged in his Complaint, i.e., deliberate indifference, failure to intervene, confiscation

1

Docket 8.

2

Docket 14.

3

Docket 15.

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 1

and destruction of personal property, and denial of access to the courts. All these
allegations arise out of events that occurred prior to the date of the Complaint.
Glass has neither obtained the consent of the Defendants nor leave of court to file
an amended complaint.4 Thus, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint has not been properly filed
or submitted to the Court for consideration.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is hereby STRICKEN
without prejudice.
If Plaintiff desires to file an amended complaint he must first obtain leave of court
by appropriate motion. In his motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint Plaintiff
must: (1) attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint; and (2) show good cause as
to why he was unable to include the allegations in his proposed amended complaint in his
original Complaint, or that allowing amendment is otherwise in the interests of justice.
Plaintiff is reminded that his amended complaint is subject to the same screening
requirements as was his original Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT
Glass v. Gregory, 1:14-cv-01703-RRB – 2