Mona S. Murillo v. Jonathan P. Cota, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's First Amended Complaint (FAC) which failed to include all claims that had previously survived screening, violating the local rule requiring amended complaints to be complete in themselves. The court dismissed the FAC, granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and denied five pending motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the First Amended Complaint (FAC)“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the FAC.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule (S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1(a)) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which require an amended complaint to be complete in itself and supersede prior pleadings. Because the FAC omitted the ADA/RA and retaliation claims that survived the initial screening, it was not a valid operative pleading. Dismissal with leave to amend is the standard procedural remedy for a defective amended complaint that does not state a claim but is curable. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion for TRO, Motion Requesting Appearance of Defendants' Counsel, Motion Requesting Clarification, and Motion to Identify John Does“Because there is no operative complaint upon which the following motions can be based, the Court DENIES the following motions without prejudice” | agree with court The court denied the motions as moot (or without prejudice) because the underlying pleading (the FAC) was dismissed. This is procedurally sound; motions dependent on a defective or non-operative pleading cannot be adjudicated on the merits until a valid complaint is before the court. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's attempt to merely substitute names for 'John Does' without restating the full claims resulted in a defective amended complaint under Local Rule 15.1(a). The court applied the correct legal standard (superseding nature of amended complaints) and provided the plaintiff with a clear path to cure the defect by filing a complete Second Amended Complaint. The denial of the other motions as moot is a logical consequence of the dismissal of the operative pleading.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MONA S. MURILLO, Case No.: 25-cv-574-BJC-VET CDCR # P43503, 11 ORDER DISMISSING THE FIRST Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 12 64) AND DENYING THE v. 13 FOLLOWING MOTIONS AS MOOT: JONATHAN P. COTA, et al., 14 (1) MOTION TO APPOINT Defendants. 15 COUNSEL (ECF No. 38);
16 (2) MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 17 RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 41); 18 19 (3) MOTION REQUESTING APPERANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ 20 COUNSEL (ECF No. 48); 21 (4) MOTION REQUESTING 22 CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S 23 ORDER (ECF No. 60);
24 (5) MOTION TO IDENTIFY JOHN 25 DOES 1 TO 18 (ECF No. 61);
27 [ECF No. 64, 38, 41, 48, 60, 61] 28 1 2 Before the Court is Mona Murillo’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 3 ECF No. 64. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the FAC. The Court 4 also DENIES the following motions as moot: Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 38), 5 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 41), Motion Requesting Appearance 6 of Defendants’ Counsel (ECF No. 48), Motion Requesting Clarification of Court’s Order 7 (ECF No. 60), Motion to Identify John Does 1 to 18 (ECF No. 61). 8 DISUCSSION 9 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant 10 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-2. On July 1, 2025, the Court screened the 11 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). ECF No. 9. The Court 12 dismissed all claims against all Defendants for failure to state a claim, with the exception 13 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims 14 against Defendants CDCR, Moeckly, Lewis, Bracamonte, Contrell, Cowart and Does 1- 15 10, the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Lewis, Arroyo, Cota, 16 Carrillo, Amaya, Alexander and Williamson, and the Eighth Amendment denial of medical 17 care claims against Defendants Does 1-10. Id. at 9–24. Plaintiff was given the option of 18 amending her complaint or proceeding only with those claims against the aforementioned 19 Defendants. Id. at 26. On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that she wishes to 20 proceed only with the claims that survived screening and has identified several of the Doe 21 Defendants by name. ECF No. 10. 22 On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend the Remaining John Does.” 23 ECF No. 17. On April 20, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and instructed 24 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than May 22, 2026. On April 29, 2026, 25 Plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Courts Clarification of Court Order,” in which 26 Plaintiff states 27 The Plaintiff does not seek, nor motion to Amended the Complaint Itself. But 28 1 to Amend John Does out and Amended Complaint to reflect John Does By name and U.S. Marshal order to served the now identified John Does. The 2 Plaintiff will not filed a Amended Complaint as no amendment is required 3 and plaintiff continues to proceed with claims and defendants as per the screening order. (sic) 4 5 ECF No. 60 at 2. 6 Despite indicating previously to the contrary, on June 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed an 7 amended complaint. ECF No. 64. Under Civil Rule 15.1(a), “[e]very pleading to which 8 an amendment is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order, must 9 be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 10 15.1(a). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not comply with the local rule. Plaintiff 11 has repeatedly indicated that she does not seek to amend the substance of her claims and 12 instead seeks only to substitute identified individuals for previously unnamed Doe 13 defendants. See ECF No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 64 at 5–6. However, the procedural mechanism 14 for adding newly identified defendants is the filing of an amended complaint. See Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Merritt v. Co. of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 766 (9th Cir. 1989). Once 16 filed, an amended complaint supersedes the prior pleading and therefore must be complete 17 in itself without reference to any earlier complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 18 1967) (“The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 19 as nonexistent.”). 20 Plaintiff’s FAC does not include the ADA/RA claim or her retaliation claim. See 21 ECF No. 64 at 3-4. Instead, the FAC swaps out John Does 1-9 with names and titles and 22 requests that the Court order the U.S. Marshall to serve the newly named Defendants. See 23 id. at 5-6. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did not intend to abandon the claims that 24 survived screening. Because Plaintiff’s FAC is not complete in itself, it does not comply 25 with Civil Rule 15.1(a) and cannot serve as the operative pleading in this action. See Hal 26 Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the FAC. 28 Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that complies with Civil 1 ||Rule 15.1(a), which must include all claims, allegations, and defendants upon which she 2 ||intends to proceed. Plaintiff may not rely on or incorporate prior pleadings by reference. 3 SAC must be complete in itself and must include all claims and defendants Plaintiff 4 ||seeks to pursue in this action, including any defendants previously identified as Doe 5 || defendants. 6 ORDERS 7 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 8 ||may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than July 28, 2026. Defendant may 9 a responsive pleading no later than August 11, 2026. Because there is no 10 |/operative complaint upon which the following motions can be based, the Court 11 ||DENIES the following motions without prejudice: 12 (1) Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 38); 13 (2) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 41); 14 (3) Motion Requesting Appearance of Defendants’ Counsel (ECF No. 48); 15 (4) Motion Requesting Clarification of Court’s Order (ECF No. 60); 16 (5) Motion to Identify John Does 1 to 18 (ECF No. 61). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: June 18, 2026 19 21 29 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 25-cv-574-BJC-VET