Edward B. Spencer v. Kelso et al
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/29/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD B. SPENCER,
J. CLARK KELSO, BRUCE BARNETT,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00724-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
(ECF No. 12)
Edward B. Spencer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action.
After receipt of a letter regarding a data breach, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court, Kings
County, California Superior Court, alleging negligence by Defendants J. Clark Kelso (federal
receiver), Bruce Barnett (Chief Medical Officer CCHCS) and Does 1-10 (healthcare staff) in
securing his personal information.
On May 23, 2017, this case was removed from state court. (ECF No. 1). Defendant
Kelso thereafter filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 5). On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court.
(ECF No. 10). On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12).
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed 19 days after Defendant Kelso’s Rule
12(b) motion to dismiss. Under Rule 15, Plaintiff had the right to file an amended complaint as
a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (providing that a plaintiff may amend its
pleading once as matter of course after service of a Rule 12(b) motion). Therefore, leave of
Court was not required. Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of
Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not
for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Plaintiff is advised that an
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d.
896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the
prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second Amended
Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of
The Court has reviewed the underlying claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Given
the simplicity of the claim (i.e. negligence), the parties shall file a responsive pleading to the
amended pleading pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) within 14 days after service. Defendants are free
to assert any available defense in any manner permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil
Upon the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the other pending motions in this
case will most likely be mooted. See Koehnen v. Herald Fire Ins. Co., 89 F.3d 525, 528 (8th
Cir. 1996) (after plaintiff sought leave to file a new complaint, holding that plaintiff’s action
equates to acceptance of federal jurisdiction and thus remand was no longer appropriate
because a “procedural defect in removal, such as untimeliness, does not affect the federal
court's subject matter jurisdiction and therefore may be waived”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?