(PC) Mills v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE 14 I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, (Doc. Nos. 53, 71, 93) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff—a state prisoner—is proceeding in this action on his First Amended Complaint 18 filed September 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 7, “FAC”). Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC on 19 December 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 47). Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to amend 20 his FAC filed on January 3, 2022, February 24, 2022, and April 11, 2022. (Doc Nos. 53, 71, 93). 21 In Plaintiff’s January 3 motion, he seeks to increase the damages he initially sought in his FAC. 22 (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 53); (see also Doc. No. 7). Before the Court could rule on this motion, 23 Plaintiff filed his February 24 motion seeking to reduce the damages he initially sought in his 24 FAC. (Doc. No. 71); (see also Doc. No. 7). In April 11 motion, Plaintiff requests leave to amend 25 his FAC “after exhausting my administrative remedies.” (Doc. No. 93 at 2). 26 Because Plaintiff already filed an amended complaint and Defendants filed an answer, 27 Plaintiff does not have a right to file further amend his complaint unless the opposing party 28 consents in writing or the court grants leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This Court’s Local Rules 1 further require a party who is seeking leave of court to file an amended pleading, “to attach the 2 document proposed to be filed as an exhibit to the moving papers seeking leave.” L. R. 137 (E.D. 3 Ca. 2022). An amended pleading must be a free-standing pleading, supersedes the previous 4 pleading and becomes the operative pleading. The Court does not accept piecemeal pleading or 5 amend sections of previous pleadings. 6 Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice because they fail to 7 conform to the Court’s Local Rules. If Plaintiff desires to amend his complaint, then he must 8 follow the guidance set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules 9 and ensure any subsequent requests to amend his complaint are freestanding, not piecemeal. 10 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT WARNING 11 As discussed supra, Plaintiff filed multiple motions before the Court issued a ruling, to 12 amend his complaint. See generally docket. Again, as discussed supra, all three of Plaintiff’s 13 motions to amend his complaint were deficient because they were not compliant with local rules. 14 This is not the first time Plaintiff filed multiple motions on the same subject matter. (see Doc. 15 Nos. 10, 40, 65, 68, 85) (motions to appoint counsel); (see also Doc Nos. 64, 77) (motions to 16 compel discovery); cf. (Doc. Nos. 50, 58). This Court previously warned plaintiff in its April 1, 17 2022, order that his motions practice was unacceptable and akin to that of a vexatious litigant. 18 (See Doc. No. 81 at 2-3). This Court also warned plaintiff multiple times after issuing its April 1, 19 2022, order (See Doc. Nos. 87, 95, 96, 97). 20 A district court has the power under the All-Writs Act to place certain requirements on 21 individuals who have lengthy histories of abusive litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Federal 22 courts may “regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions 23 under . . . appropriate circumstances.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 24 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). 25 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to 26 preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of 27 other litigants.” DeLong, 912 F.3d at 1148; see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 28 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). “Any individual representing himself or herself without an 1 | attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other 2 | applicable laws. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals 3 || appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment 4 | by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.” L.R. 183 (2019). 5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and other legal obligations 6 | discussed supra apply to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's pro se status is not and excuse to ignore the Court’s 7 | repeated warnings or violate various rules; instead, Plaintiff is expected to abide by them. See 8 | L.R. 183 (2019). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff should have received the Court’s multiple 9 | warnings that because of his litigious behaviour he is on the verge of being sanctioned. (See Doc. 10 | Nos. 81, 87, 95, 96, 97). 11 Plaintiff is warned this is his last and final warning. If Plaintiff persists in ignoring 12 | the Court’s orders, the Court will recommend that the district court dismiss this action for 13 | abuse of the judicial process. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 Plaintiff's Motions to amend his First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 53, 71, 93) are 16 DENIED without prejudice. 17 | Dated: _ April 15, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28