(PC) Rojas et al v. Brown et al

Filing 26

ORDER Discharging the Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/2018. Court ORDERS the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STACY ROJAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

EDMUND BROWN, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01514 DAD JLT

Defendants.

16
17

In ordering this matter reclassified as a “civil” case, the Court took note that there were pleading

18

deficiencies in the complaint. Consequently, it ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why certain

19

defendants and causes of action should not be dismissed but permitted, if the plaintiffs chose, leave to

20

file an amended complaint instead1 (Doc. 23); they chose the latter option (Doc. 24). Therefore, the

21

Court ORDERS the order to show cause is DISCHARGED2.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

25
26
27
28

1

The plaintiffs have chosen to omit one or more defendants and one or more causes of action. Because the
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, in essence, the plaintiffs have dismissed the omitted defendant and
cause of action. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (explaining that as a general rule, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey
v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) [“All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not
alleged in an amended complaint are waived.”]
2
In discharging the order to show cause, the Court makes no comment as to the cognizability of the complaint and
no comment whether the issues identified in its order to show cause were rectified.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE