Walker v. Mohadjer et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/16/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 23 request to supplement his amended complaint is construed as a request to file a second amended complaint and is GRANTED; plaintiff must file any secon d amended complaint within 30 days; to the extent plaintiff's 12 motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief, it is DISREGARDED in light of the pending Findings and Recommendations; and plaintiff is CAUTIONED that continued seriatim filings, especially those made before the court has had an opportunity to act on earlier requests or motions, may subject plaintiff to sanctions. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P

Plaintiff,
v.
MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

17
18

By Findings and Recommendations filed on August 6, 2013 (ECF No. 20), the

19

undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 13

20

and 17) be denied. By special appearance, the Attorney General’s Office provided information to

21

the court that, despite plaintiff’s representations to the contrary, he has been receiving psychiatric

22

care for his alleged mental health crisis and is being closely monitored.

23

Plaintiff has once again filed a duplicative request without awaiting final adjudication of

24

prior requests. ECF No. 23. The court has previously found plaintiff’s amended complaint to

25

state a cognizable claim against defendant Mohadjer for inadequate medical care in violation of

26

the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 15 Plaintiff evidently now seeks leave to supplement both his

27

first amended complaint and his prior requests for immediate injunctive. Plaintiff appears to be

28
1

1

claiming that he has harmed or attempted to harm himself by slicing his wrists on additional

2

occasions while he has been in the crisis bed unit at Kern Valley State Prison and since the filing

3

of his earlier requests. ECF No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff’s allegations are contradictory and barely

4

coherent. He claims that on July 26, 2013, he was placed back in crisis in a “double-cell life

5

threatening situation,” while at the same time saying his placement in a double cell causes him to

6

make “return trips to crisis.” Id. Plaintiff states that he is housed at CMF-Vacaville, while

7

simultaneously indicating that until the day of his present writing, August 10, 2013, he was in the

8

(KVSP) crisis unit. Id. He states that as of August 10, 2013 he would be transferred to CMF,

9

while at the same time indicating that he was “feeling better,” writing “off the top” of his head

10
11

and still in a KVSP crisis bed where he had been since July 28, 2013. ECF No. 23 at 3.
Despite plaintiff’s deficient putative motion, in light of the liberal rules of federal

12

pleading and plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will permit plaintiff to file a second amended

13

complaint. In so doing, he must include all of his claims and name all of the defendants against

14

which he wishes to proceed. Piecemeal filings will not be permitted (see Local Rule 220) and

15

any second amended complaint will supersede the earlier amended complaint. See Lacey v.

16

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the general rule is that an amended

17

complaint super[s]edes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect. . .”). Plaintiff

18

will have thirty days to file a second amended complaint.

19
20

However, plaintiff’s insufficiently supported request for immediate injunctive relief will
be disregarded.

21

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

22

1. Plaintiff’s request to supplement his amended complaint (ECF No. 23) is construed as

23
24
25
26
27
28

a request to file a second amended complaint and is granted;
2. Plaintiff must file any second amended complaint within thirty days. Should he fail to
do so within the time provided, this action will proceed on the first amended complaint;
3. To the extent plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 23) seeks preliminary injunctive relief, it
will be disregarded in light of the pending Findings and Recommendations; and
4. Plaintiff’s is cautioned that continued seriatim filings, especially those made before the
2

1

court has had an opportunity to act on earlier requests or motions, may subject plaintiff to

2

sanctions.

3

DATED: August 16, 2013

4
5
6
7
8
9

AC:009
walk1193.ord2

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3