(PC) Medina v. Luis ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC) 11 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 13 v. SUBSTITUTE DOE DEFENDANTS AND ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE 14 CDCR, et al., (ECF No. 34, 36) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Cesario Medina is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that ISU officers arrived at his housing unit to 20 interview him regarding a matter related to his criminal case. (ECF No. 1, at 4). During the 21 process of removing him, the officers twisted his arm with force behind his back, which caused a 22 break in his arm that had been surgically repaired and healed. (Id.) The case is now proceeding on 23 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Doe ISU Officers 1–3, but only those 24 ISU officers who were directly responsible for breaking Plaintiff’s arm. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9). 25 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Doe Defendants (ECF No. 34), in 26 which Plaintiff seeks to substitute ISU Officers Anthony Arisco, F. Munoz, and Sgt. Case, as well 27 as Addendum to Motion to Substitute (ECF No. 36), in which Plaintiff seeks to substitute 28 1 Anthony Arisco and Joe Luis. The Court also heard from the Plaintiff during November 16, 2023, 2 telephonic conference. 3 Based on Plaintiff’s motions and statements made during the hearing, for the reasons 4 stated on the record, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motions to substitute Anthony Arisco and Joe Luis for Doe ISU Officers 1–3. 5 However, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions as to F. Munoz and Sgt. Case because 6 there are no pending claims for a failure to protect and they are not the Doe officers identified in 7 the complaint for excessive force. 8 If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to include additional defendants and violations 9 under the law as discussed above, he has 60 days to file a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is 10 advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 11 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself without reference 12 to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 13 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 14 alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” 15 refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 16 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in 17 due course. 18 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute and Addendum to Motion to Substitute (ECF Nos. 20 34, 36) are granted in part and denied in part. 21 2. All references in the complaint to DOE ISU officers shall be substituted with Joe 22 Luis and Anthony Arisco. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 23 excessive force claim against Defendant Joe Luis and Anthony Arisco. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9). 24 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Doe ISU Officers 1-2 from the docket 25 and add Joe Luis and Anthony Arisco. 26 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a section 1983 civil rights 27 complaint form; 28 1 5. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, Plaintiff may file a motion to amend 2 within 60 days from the date of this Order. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his 3 complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended 4 Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:22-cv-00764-EPG. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7] Dated: _ November 20, 2023 [Je hey □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28