(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT AS UNNECESSARY 14 SATTERFIELD, et al., (Doc. 21) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 7, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915A and found that it states cognizable claims of retaliation against Defendants Satterfield, 19 Eslick, Jackson, and Salzer, but not against Flores. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed a notice that he 20 wishes to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (Doc. 14.) Accordingly, the Court issued 21 findings and recommendations to dismiss Defendant Flores (Doc. 17) and an order directing 22 service of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 18). Defendants filed a waiver of service on April 15, 2020 23 (Doc. 22), and a responsive pleading is due June 5, 2020. 24 On April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting permission to file a second amended 25 complaint. (Doc. 21.) Because Plaintiff has not yet filed a first amended complaint—his original 26 complaint is the current operative pleading—the Court construes his filing as a motion to file a 27 first amended complaint. 28 /// 1 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 2 once as a matter of right within 21 days of Defendants filing a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 15(a)(1); Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Therefore, 4 the Court DISREGARDS Plaintiff’s motion as unnecessary. Plaintiff may file a first amended 5 complaint, without leave of Court, within 21 days of Defendants filing a responsive pleading to 6 Plaintiff’s original complaint. See id. 7 The Court notes that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the 8 original is “treated thereafter as non-existent.” Ramirez, 806 F.3d at 1008 (internal quotation 9 marks and citations omitted). In addition, the Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s amended 10 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Defendants will not be required to submit a 11 responsive pleading to any amended complaint until such screening is completed. 12 Plaintiff states that he has “acquired more information/supporting evidence/supporting 13 facts as relates to this matter.” (Doc. 21 at 1.) The Court notes, first, that supporting evidence is 14 not required at this stage of litigation. As stated in the Court’s first informational order, parties 15 may not file “evidence” (such as disciplinary records, witness affidavits, etc.) with the Court 16 unless it becomes necessary to do so in response to a motion or Court order or at trial. (Doc. 8 at 17 3.) Second, although Plaintiff may include additional facts in an amended complaint, if the facts 18 pertain to the same claims of retaliation that the Court has already found cognizable (see Doc. 19 13), additional facts are unnecessary. Plaintiff should only file an amended complaint if he wishes 20 to add or remove claims or defendants. Plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies 21 with respect to any new claims in an amended complaint before filing that amended complaint. 22 See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 23, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28