Moore v. Hatton et al

Filing 8

ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/9/2020. Amended Complaint due by 10/8/2020. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOHNNY ANDREW MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

Case No. 20-01445 BLF (PR)
ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

S. HATTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed a pro se complaint in Monterey County Superior

19

Court, which Defendants removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(b). Dkt.

20

No. 1. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ request to screen the complaint,

21

dismissed the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim as barred by res judicata,

22

and dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 7 at 3-

23

4. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the

24

date the order was filed. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was also advised that in the alternative, he may

25

file notice in the same time provided that he wishes to strike all the federal claims from

26

this action and have the matter remanded back to state court to pursue the sole state law

27

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 5.

28

To date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in this matter. However, the Court notes that

1

Plaintiff filed two motions requesting an extension of time “to prepa[re] response to order

2

granting motion for dismissal with leave to amend complaint” in a different case which is

3

closed. See Moore v. Hatton, et al., Case No. 17-03696 BLF (PR), Dkt. Nos. 35, 38.

4

Apparently, Plaintiff has his case numbers confused. Accordingly, in the interest of

5

justice, the Court will sua sponte grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended

6

complaint in this matter.

7

Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file

8

an amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to attempt to state sufficient facts

9

to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. The amended complaint must include the
caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 20-01445 BLF (PR), and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must not make any

12

reference to Case No. 17-03696 BLF, which is a closed matter, to avoid any further

13

delays in this matter. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the

14

action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the

15

original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original complaint. Claims not

16

included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an

17

amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

18

(9th Cir.1992).

19

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended

20

complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without

21

prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __September 9, 2020_______

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26

Order Granting EOT to File Am. Compl.
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\01445Moore_eot-ac

27
28

2