McInnis v. Vaughn et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/13/2018 ORDERING plaintiff's 12/6/2017 "amended complaints" is STRICKEN; and plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint which complies with the terms of the court' s 11/16/2017 order. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline, this action will proceed on plaintiffs claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Herrera identified in plaintiff's original complaint.(Yin, K) Modified on 3/13/2018 (Yin, K).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-1318 CKD P
VAUGHN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On November
16, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The court found as follows:
The court has conducted the required screening and finds that
plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendant Herrera upon
which relief could be granted arising under the Eighth Amendment
for excessive force as alleged by plaintiff in claim II. In all other
respects, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims upon which relief
can be granted.
At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed
only on the claim identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the
deficiencies with respect to other claims in an amended complaint.
Plaintiff was informed that if he elected to file an amended complaint:
[T]he court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an
amended pleading complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an
amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,
375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended
complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in
the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must
be sufficiently alleged.
On December 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a document titled “amended complaints.” In that
document, plaintiff attempts to re-plead some of the claims presented in his original complaint
and adds new claims. However, he omits his claim against defendant Herrera. It appears
plaintiff’s intent is to supplement his claim against defendant Herrera, despite the court’s
admonition that his amended complaint needs to include all claims.
Also, plaintiff ignored that court’s admonition that:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), plaintiff may
join in one action as many claims as he has against one defendant.
Other defendants can be joined to claims, but claims which are only
against other defendants generally must be brought in a separate
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s December 6, 2016 “amended complaints” is stricken; and
2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to file an amended complaint which complies
with the terms of the court’s November 16, 2017 order. If plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint by the deadline, this action will proceed on plaintiff’s claim arising under the Eighth
Amendment against defendant Herrera identified in plaintiff’s original complaint.
Dated: March 13, 2018
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
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?