Ward v. Pascual
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's motion for a copy of his complaint and his election to amend his civil rights complaint after initial screening. The court granted the motion for the copy and sua sponte extended the time to file an amended complaint to 45 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for copy of complaint granted“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for a copy of his Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) to Plaintiff.” | agree with court The request is a standard administrative accommodation for a pro se litigant to access court records, which is routinely granted to facilitate the amendment process. |
Time to amend extended“The Court also sua sponte EXTENDS the time to amend to forty-five (45) days after the date this Order 1s filed.” | agree with court Courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and set reasonable deadlines for pro se litigants to file amended pleadings, particularly when the plaintiff has indicated an intent to amend. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture and grants a routine administrative motion. It appropriately cites Ninth Circuit authority regarding the superseding nature of amended pleadings to warn the plaintiff that failure to re-plead claims results in waiver. The reasoning is sufficient for the limited scope of the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH WARD, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1423-BAS-AHG CDCR #BN-7790, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 COPY OF COMPLAINT AND vs. EXTENDING TIME TO AMEND 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS 15 PASCUAL, SOSA and MASSARO, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Joseph Ward is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On October 25, 21 2023, the Court screened the Complaint and found it survived screening with respect to the 22 First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Pascal only and dismissed the 23 remaining claims against the remaining Defendants without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.) 24 Plaintiff was instructed to notify the Court of his choice of going forward with the claims 25 that survived screening or attempting to amend the Complaint to cure the pleading 26 deficiencies of the claims which did not survive screening. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff has now filed a Reply in which he indicates he wishes to file an amended 28 complaint. (ECF No. 5.) He has also filed a Motion for a copy of his original Complaint 1 ||to assist him in amending. (ECF No. 6.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for a 2 || copy of his Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the Complaint 3 (ECF No. 1) to Plaintiff. The Court also sua sponte EXTENDS the time to amend to forty- 4 || five (45) days after the date this Order 1s filed. 5 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference 6 any previous version of his Complaint. Any Defendants not re-named and any claims 7 ||not re-alleged in the First Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. 8 || CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 9 Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa 10 || County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to 11 |}amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not 12 |/repled”). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 / , 15 || DATED: November 20, 2023 Uy Wg (Lyphaa 6 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □□