Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation et al
Filing
52
ORDER Regarding Notice of Objection [Doc. No. 51 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 8/14/2020.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
John Henry YABLONSKY
Case No.: 18cv1122-CAB-AGS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF
OBJECTION [Doc. No. 51]
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AND
REHABILITATION,
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
On October 7, 2019, Defendants D. Powell, G. Martinez, J. Robles, D. McGuire,
19
R. Blahnik, and C. Tiscarnia (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First
20
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 39.] On June 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge
21
Andrew G. Schopler prepared a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending
22
that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. No. 39.] On July
23
14, 2020, this Court issued an order adopting the Report, granting in part and denying in
24
part the motion to dismiss the FAC, and giving Plaintiff until August 7, 2020, to file a
25
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. No. 43.] The order also stated that if
26
Plaintiff did not file an SAC, then Defendants were to answer the FAC (as amended by
27
the Court’s order ) by August 21, 2020. [Doc. No. 43 at 3.]
28
1
18cv1122-CAB-AGS
1
On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion Entering Objections pursuant to §636
2
Regarding Courts July 14, 2020 Order. [Doc. No. 46.] On July 28, 2020, the Court
3
issued an order denying the motion entering objections, and indicated that the only claim
4
in the FAC that had not been dismissed was the Free Speech Claim. [Doc. No. 48 at 2.]
5
On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to the July 28 order, arguing that the
6
Retaliation claim in the FAC – other than the reading legal mail claim – also was not
7
dismissed. [Doc. No. 51.] Plaintiff is correct. The Retaliation claim in the FAC – except
8
for the reading legal mail claim – was not dismissed. [See Doc. No. 39 at 12, 16; Doc.
9
No. 43 at 2-3.]
10
Given the Court’s error in the July 28 order, Plaintiff will be given ONE FINAL
11
OPPORTUNITY to file a SAC. Plaintiff shall have until September 4, 2020 to file a
12
SAC. Plaintiff is again reminded that the SAC must be complete in itself without
13
reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in
14
the Second Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1;
15
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.
16
1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693
17
F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which
18
are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”)
19
If Plaintiff does not file a SAC by September 4, 2020, then the case will proceed as
20
to the remaining claims in the FAC (the Free Speech claim and the Retaliation claim--
21
except for the reading legal mail claim), which Defendants are required to answer by
22
September 28, 2020.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2020
25
26
27
28
2
18cv1122-CAB-AGS
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?