(PC) Bland v. Salazar ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSHUA D. BLAND, Case No. 1:19-cv-01499-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12 FOR RECONSIDERATION, UNDER THE v. NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE, 13 UNDER THE RULE OF NECESSITY, IPSO DOE, JORE, INTER ALIA 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 25) 15 16 17 18 Joshua D. Bland (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff’s 21 motion will be denied because there is nothing for the Court to reconsider. Plaintiff appears to 22 ask the Court to reconsider the dismissal of his common law copyright claim, but the Court did 23 not dismiss this claim. 24 Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1). 25 Plaintiff asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims based on a failure to return his hearing aids 26 and a violation of his common law copyrights. The Court screened the complaint and found 27 that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 15). The Court allowed Plaintiff 28 to choose to either stand on his complaint or file an amended complaint. (Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff 4:40 UV VEIT OR NS MMIC Ia Ore PAY eI 1 || was warned “that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 2 || County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself 3 || without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220.” (1d. at 7). 4 On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16). 5 || Plaintiff only included his claim based on a failure to return his hearing aids, and the case is 6 || now proceeding on this claim. (ECF No. 19). As it was Plaintiff who chose not to assert his 7 |}common law copyright claim(s) in his First Amended Complaint there is nothing for the Court 8 || to reconsider. 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 10 ul IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _ July 8, 2020 [sf ey — 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28