Ford v. King et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for the Court's reconsideration of this case signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/3/2018. Thirty (30) Day Deadline. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
KING, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00822-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE COURT’S RECONSIDERATION
OF THIS CASE
(ECF No. 29)

Defendants.

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff Darren Vincent Ford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this

19

action on June 15, 2017, in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. (ECF

20

No. 1.) The action was transferred to the Fresno Division on June 20, 2017. (ECF No. 3.)
On September 12, 2018, the Court issued an order resolving various pending motions filed

21
22

by Plaintiff, relating to his application to proceed in forma pauperis, amending the complaint,

23

appointing counsel, and discovery. Ultimately, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an

24

amended complaint setting forth all the claims Plaintiff intends to pursue in this action. (ECF No.

25

28.)

26

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for the Court’s Reconsideration of This

27

Case.” (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff states that his main objective in this action is to receive mental

28

health sex offender treatment at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff believes that he will soon be
1

1

released from prison because he was incorrectly sentenced, but he does not wish to be released to

2

the community until he has received this treatment and been cured. Plaintiff requests that the

3

Court draft up an order as a settlement agreement that would ensure that he receives sex offender

4

treatment at Coalinga State Hospital, and he will drop all charges against Defendant King and

5

discontinue the investigation being conducted by the Department of Consumer Affairs. (Id.)

6

Plaintiff does not indicate whether he intends to file an amended complaint.

7

Plaintiff’s request is denied. At this time, there is no operative complaint in this action,

8

and therefore the case does not proceed on any cognizable claims. Similarly, no defendant has

9

been served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Therefore, the Court lacks personal

10

jurisdiction over any staff at Coalinga State Hospital, and it cannot issue an order requiring them

11

to take any action, such as permitting Plaintiff to receive sex offender treatment. The Court also

12

cannot enter into a settlement agreement on behalf of any defendant to this action, whether

13

Plaintiff agrees to dismiss this suit or not.

14

Although Plaintiff has not requested additional time, in consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se

15

status the Court will permit Plaintiff a final opportunity to receive the Court’s order and to file a

16

first amended complaint setting forth all the claims Plaintiff intends to pursue in this action, as

17

discussed in the Court’s September 12, 2018 order. After Plaintiff files the first amended

18

complaint, it will be screened in due course.

19

Plaintiff is reminded that his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but

20

it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional

21

rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be

22

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

23

(citations omitted).

24

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated

25

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no

26

“buckshot” complaints).

27
28

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended
2

1

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”

2

Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to incorporate by

3

reference.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

a. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days in which to file a first amended complaint (or

6

a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

41(a)(1)(A)(i)); and

8

b. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this

9

order, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey

10

a court order;

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 3, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3