Lyle

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/23/2017.(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN W. LYLE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-00426-JSC

v.
SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND; RESOLVING PENDING
MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 26

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action under

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed a First

15

Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 18, 23.) Thereafter, he filed papers that appear to be intended to

16

supplement the amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) He has since filed a motion to dismiss his

17

complaint in order to complete exhausting his claims. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff certainly has the

18

right to voluntarily dismiss his case under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

19

such a dismissal would be without prejudice, meaning that he would be able to file his claims

20

again at a later date after his claims are exhausted and he is ready to submit them. Plaintiff asks,

21

somewhat contradictorily, to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court

22

presumes that Plaintiff means that he does not want to dismiss this action, but rather that he wants

23

to further amend his complaint. Two letters received from Plaintiff following his motion to

24

dismiss further suggest that he would like to continue prosecuting this case and to amend his

25

complaint further. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the

26

First Amended Complaint with leave to amend is GRANTED, as follows:

27
28

1. Within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a
Second Amended Complaint that includes the caption and civil case number used in this Order

1

(No. C 17-0426 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED SECOND AMENDED

2

COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the prior

3

versions of the complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff

4

may not incorporate material from the original complaint or First Amended Complaint by

5

reference. He must include in his Second Amended Complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue.

6

Moreover, Plaintiff may not file his Second Amended Complaint in pieces or supplement it after

7

the fact. Rather, Plaintiff must include all the claims, allegations, and defendants he wishes to

8

include in this case in his Second Amended Complaint. Lastly, the Second Amended Complaint

9

must comply with the joinder rules discussed in the Order dismissing the complaint with leave to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

amend. (ECF No. 18.) If Plaintiff fails to amend within the designated time and in accordance
with this order, this case will proceed based upon the First Amended Complaint.
2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he
may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is
filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of
this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 21) is DENIED as unnecessary.

18
His motion to stay the proceedings (ECF No. 22) is DENIED as moot because it pre-dates his
19
motion to amend the complaint.
20
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 21, 22, and 26.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: October 23, 2017
23
24
25

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN W. LYLE,

Case No. 17-cv-00426-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
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 October 23, 2017, 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.

18
19
20

John W. Lyle ID: 0264100
San Mateo County Jail
300 Bradford Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

21
22

Dated: October 23, 2017

23
24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
3