Cook v. Cate et al

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 39 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for a Second Time. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SCOTT TROY COOK,

4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

7

ORDER DENYING AS
UNNECESSARY PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
HIS COMPLAINT FOR A SECOND
TIME

Defendants.
_______________________________________/

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 11-6581 YGR (PR)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), filed a
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, he filed an amended complaint
in which he challenged his placement and retention in administrative segregation in the secure

11
housing unit at PBSP on the basis of association with the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. He
12
named numerous Defendants from PBSP in Crescent City, the California Department of Corrections
13
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Sacramento, as well as the California Substance Abuse Treatment
14
Facility (CSATF) and Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran. His motion for leave to proceed in
15
forma pauperis has been granted.
16
In an Order dated January 29, 2013, the Court issued its Order of Service upon finding that
17
Plaintiff had stated cognizable claims under § 1983 for a denial of due process against Defendants
18
from PBSP and CDCR. Plaintiff's remaining claims -- including, among others, violations of his
19
due process rights and his First Amendment right to send and receive mail -- against the CSATF and
20
CSP officials were dismissed without prejudice because such claims should instead be addressed in
21
a separate civil rights complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
22
California as these officials reside in that district. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims were also
23
dismissed without prejudice. Finally, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
24
state law claims.
25
Before the Court is Plaintiff's request for leave to amend his complaint for a second time in
26
27
28

order to do the following:
(1) add Defendant D. Jacquez;
(2) remove all claims against Defendants "that pertain to the Eastern District [that]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

were dismissed without prejudice by this Court";
(3) remove the Eighth Amendment claim dismissed by this Court; and
(4) remove the "excess verbage in the facts that are legal arguments" and "clean up
some of his complaint."
(May 22, 2013 Mot. at 1.)
First, Plaintiff has already informed the Court that Defendant "D. Vacquez" (who was
originally listed as such in his amended complaint) should actually be listed as "D. Jacquez."
(Docket No. 38.) On June 10, 2013, the Clerk sent a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service to Defendant D. Jacquez at PBSP. (Docket No. 44.)
Second, as mentioned above, the Court has dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claims
against the CSATF and CSP officials (who reside in the Eastern District) as well as his Eighth
Amendment claims. There is no need to "remove" those claims as they have already been
dismissed.
Finally, the Court finds that there is no reason for the Plaintiff to "clean up" his complaint by
removing "excess verbage."
Accordingly, the Court DENIES as unnecessary Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his
complaint for a second time.
This Order terminates Docket No. 39.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

DATED:

July 12, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Cook6581.denyAMEND.wpd

2