Lucas v. Masedeo, et al.

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/12/2016 GRANTING plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint; if plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within that time, the undersigned will order service of the original complaint on defendants Masedeo and Gaines. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE LUCAS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0171 KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

C. MASEDEO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are two “amendments” filed by plaintiff on

19

November 21, 2016, and December 5, 2016. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.)

20

On October 31, 2016, the undersigned issued an order screening the original complaint.

21

(ECF No. 13.) In relevant part, the undersigned found that plaintiff stated a potentially colorable

22

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Masedeo based on the June 5, 2015

23

incident. The undersigned also found that plaintiff stated a potentially colorable retaliation claim

24

against defendant Gaines based on plaintiff’s transfer to A1 on October 3, 2015. The undersigned

25

dismissed with leave to amend plaintiff’s claim that he wrote defendants Malugani and Hunter

26

letters in October on the grounds that plaintiff failed to describe the contents of these letters.

27
28

In his November 21, 2016 “amendment,” plaintiff addresses the portion of the October 31,
2016 order dismissing his claims against defendants Malugani and Hunter. Plaintiff alleges that
1

1

these letters addressed “the assault” (presumably referring to the June 5, 2015 incident involving

2

defendant Masedeo) and the other incidents up to October 25, 2015, when he delivered his letters

3

to defendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not contact him about his concerns. Plaintiff’s

4

December 5, 2016 “amendment” makes similar allegations.

5

Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

6

reference to any prior pleading. In other words, piecemeal amendment of pleadings is not

7

permitted. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to amend his claims against

8

defendants Malugani and Hunter through his “amendments,” the amendments are denied.

9

Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint containing his claims against

10

all defendants. If plaintiff files an amended complaint alleging that he wrote letters to defendants

11

Malugani and Hunter about the alleged deprivations, he shall describe in detail the contents of the

12

letters. If plaintiff does file an amended complaint within that time, the undersigned will order

13

service of the original complaint on defendants Masedeo and Gaines.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date

15

of this order to file an amended complaint; if plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within

16

that time, the undersigned will order service of the original complaint on defendants Masedeo and

17

Gaines.

18

Dated: December 12, 2016

19
20
21
22

luc171.ame

23
24
25
26
27
28
2