(PC) Chavez v. Doe 1 ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 GILBERTO CHAVEZ, 1:18-cv-01534-AWI-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2020 12 v. (ECF No. 18.) 13 J. DOE #1, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Gilberto Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed 19 the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On January 30, 2020, the court screened 20 the Complaint and issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify 21 the court that he is willing to proceed only with the deliberate indifference claim against 22 defendant Jane Doe #1 found cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 15.) On February 3, 2020, 23 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff 24 lodged another amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) 25 II. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a) 26 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 27 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, 28 a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and 1 leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because Plaintiff has 2 already amended the Complaint and no adverse party has appeared in this action, Plaintiff 3 requires leave of court to file another amended complaint. 4 Plaintiff has not filed a motion to amend the complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to amend the 5 complaint, he must file a motion for leave to amend, setting forth his arguments in favor of 6 amending the complaint. Plaintiff has not done so. Together with the motion for leave to amend, 7 Plaintiff must also lodge a separate, proposed amended complaint for the court’s review. 8 Here, Plaintiff’s lodged amended complaint is improper because it is largely written in 9 the Spanish language. The court does not accept complaints or other case documents written in 10 a language other than English, and the court shall not respond using a language other than 11 English. There are no appropriated funds available to translate court documents from a foreign 12 language to English or vice versa. Spanish translations and interpreters are not required in civil 13 cases such as this one under either California or Federal law — that protection is confined to 14 criminal proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1044 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 The court recognizes that there are limited exceptions to this general rule, but prisoner civil rights 16 cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are not among them. Therefore, Plaintiff’s lodged amended 17 complaint shall be stricken1 from the record as improperly submitted. 18 II. CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint, 20 lodged on February 5, 2020, is STRICKEN from the record as improperly submitted.. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 1 When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any 28 purpose.