Marquez v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Steve Marquez v. C. Rodriguez (2023-09-06) — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint to name a specific defendant after the dismissal of the United States. The court granted the motion, ordered the dismissal of the remaining Doe defendants without prejudice, and set a deadline for filing the First Amended Complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file an amended complaint granted“Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint adding C. Rodriguez as a defendant no later than January 10, 2020.” | agree with court The court granted the motion to amend, which is a standard procedural ruling allowing the plaintiff to correct the identification of a defendant. The order does not detail the specific legal standard applied (e.g., Rule 15(a) factors), but the grant is consistent with the court's prior order giving the plaintiff time to identify defendants. |
Dismissal of Doe defendants without prejudice“All other Doe defendants are HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The plaintiff requested the dismissal of the other Doe defendants in his motion. The court granted this request. Dismissing unidentified defendants without prejudice is a standard procedural step when a plaintiff fails to identify them or chooses to drop them, preserving the right to refile if necessary. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural ruling. It correctly applies the local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the superseding nature of amended complaints. The court clearly states the deadline and the consequences of failing to re-plead claims. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural action.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVE MARQUEZ Case No.: 18-CV-00434-CAB-NLS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 45] 16 17 On August 2, 2019, this Court granted Defendant United States’ motion to dismiss 18 the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendant United States was 19 dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 38.] In August 2, 2019 Order, the Court noted that 20 the only claims that now remain in the case are the Eighth Amendment claims against John 21 Doe #1, John Doe #2 and Jane Doe #1, and gave Plaintiff until September 30, 2019, to 22 identify the Doe defendants and file a motion to amend the complaint to name the identified 23 Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 38 at 9.] 24 On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Extension of Time, requesting 25 additional time to identify the Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 41.] On September 30, 2019, 26 this Court granted Plaintiff’s request and gave Plaintiff until November 29, 2019 to file a 27 motion to amend the complaint to name the identified Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 42.] 28 1 On November 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended 2 ||complaint. [Doc. No. 45.] In the motion, Plaintiff states that he has now identified John 3 || Doe #1 as C. Rodriguez. He requests that the other Doe defendants be dismissed and that 4 ||he be granted leave to file an amended complaint adding C. Rodriguez as a defendant. 5 || Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint adding 6 ||C. Rodriguez as a defendant no later than January 10, 2020. All other Doe defendants are 7 || HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 8 Plaintiff is reminded that his First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself 9 || without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re- 10 alleged in the First Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 11 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 12 || 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 13 || F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are 14 || not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.’’) 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: December 12, 2019 € BE 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28