Manzanillo v. Jaquez et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ON PENDING MOTIONS; DIRECTION DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION TO COMPEL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/15/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

RAYMOND MANZANILLO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, R. GRAVES, )
R. TUPY, J. ZUCCO, MARK POTTER, )
)
ROLF KLOTZ,
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________ )

No. C 10-3783 JSW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; ON PENDING
MOTIONS; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE
RE. MOTION TO COMPEL
(Docket Nos. 54, 56 – 59)

16
17

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of Pelican Bay State Prison, where Plaintiff is

19

incarcerated. The complaint has been ordered served upon Defendants, discovery has

20

been allowed, and dispositive motions have been scheduled. Plaintiff has filed a motion

21

for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (docket number 57), with a proposed First

22

Amended Complaint attached. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. See

23

Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave

25

shall be freely given when justice so requires).

26

The First Amended Complaint supercedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v.

27

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). Thus, Plaintiff’s earlier motion to file a

28

supplement to the original complaint (docket number 54) is DENIED as moot.

1

Furthermore, in responding to the complaint pursuant to the Order of Service dated

2

January 7, 2011, Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint and disregard

3

the original complaint.

4

Plaintiff has filed a two motions “regarding the sufficiency of” objections ans

5

answers to his discovery. No such motion is authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil

6

Procedure or the Local Rules. Consequently, these motions (docket numbers 56 and 58)

7

are DENIED. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel after he has complied with the “meet

8

and confer” requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which Plaintiff has done

9

(docket number 59) in a separate motion. Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW

10

CAUSE, within 21 days of the date this order is filed, why the motion to compel should

11

not be granted.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 15, 2011

14
15

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

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

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
RAYMOND MANZANILLO,

Case Number: CV10-03783 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
FRANCISCO JAQUEZ et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 15, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17
18
19

Raymond J. Manzanillo
PBSP
P.O. Box 7500
J91574
Crescent City, CA 95532

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: July 15, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk