Fernandez v. Jackson et al
Filing
20
ORDER Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ECF No. 1 is reinstated and deferred. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing deficiencies, the amended complaint is due by October 16, 2016. Clerk to send Plaintiff the appro ved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions, original Complaint ECF No. 4 , original Screening Order ECF No. 3 and Ninth Circuit Order ECF. No. 16 . If an amended complaint is not filed, Plaintiff must file a written notice informing the Court of his intent to proceed with this case. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint and/or notify the Court of his intent by October 16, 2016, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 09/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BRET JACKSON et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
13
I.
7
8
9
10
11
KEVIN FERNANDEZ,
3:13-cv-00670-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
DISCUSSION
14
On April 3, 2014, this Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
15
and dismissed his complaint, with prejudice, as amendment would be futile, for failure to state
16
a claim. (ECF No. 3 at 6-7). The Clerk of Court entered judgment the same day. (ECF No.
17
5). Plaintiff appealed. (ECF No. 6). On August 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
18
affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. (ECF No. 16 at 4).
19
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s order, the Court now finds that Count I, alleging retaliation,
20
shall proceed against Defendants Jackson and Marikami but grants Plaintiff leave to amend
21
Count I in order to give Plaintiff an opportunity to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate
22
retaliation against the other defendants. (Id. at 2). The Court now finds that Count II, alleging
23
due process violations, shall proceed against Defendants Serrano and Jackson to the extent
24
that Plaintiff is alleging that he was subjected to mental health treatment against his will. (Id.
25
at 3). The Court now finds that Plaintiff’s state law claims may proceed under supplemental
26
jurisdiction. (Id. at 4).
27
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of his
28
retaliation claim. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint he is advised that an
amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended
1
complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,
2
Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the
3
original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey
4
v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with
5
prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended
6
complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain all claims,
7
defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover,
8
Plaintiff must file the amended complaint on this Court’s approved prisoner civil rights form and
9
it must be entitled “First Amended Complaint.”
10
The Court notes that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing the
11
deficiencies, as outlined in this order and the Ninth Circuit’s order, Plaintiff shall file the
12
amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order. If Plaintiff chooses not
13
to file an amended complaint curing the stated deficiencies, Plaintiff must notify the Court
14
within 30 days from the date of this order that he chooses to proceed on Count I against
15
Defendants Jackson and Marikami, Count II against Defendants Serrano and Jackson, and
16
Counts III, IV, V, VI, and VII through supplemental jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not either file
17
an amended complaint or file a notice informing the Court of his intent to proceed with this
18
case without filing an amended complaint, the Court shall dismiss this case with prejudice.
19
II.
CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma
21
pauperis (ECF No. 1) is reinstated. The Court now defers a decision on the application to
22
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1).
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint curing
24
the deficiencies of his complaint, as outlined in this order and the Ninth Circuit’s order, Plaintiff
25
shall file the amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order.
26
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff the
27
approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, a copy of his original
28
complaint (ECF No. 4), a copy of this Court’s original screening order (ECF No. 3), and a copy
2
1
of the Ninth Circuit’s order (ECF No. 16). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint,
2
he must use the approved form and he shall write the words “First Amended” above the words
3
“Civil Rights Complaint” in the caption.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint,
5
he must file a written notice informing the Court of his intent to proceed with this case without
6
filing an amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file such a notice, this case shall proceed
7
on Count I against Defendants Jackson and Marikami, Count II against Defendants Serrano
8
and Jackson, and Counts III, IV, V, VI, and VII through supplemental jurisdiction.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to either file an amended complaint or
10
notify the Court of his intent to proceed with this case within 30 days from the date of this
11
order, the Court shall dismiss this case with prejudice.
12
13
DATED: This _____ day of September, 2016.
16th
14
15
_________________________________
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?