(PC) Helm v. Madera County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB CURTIS ALLEN HELM, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00423 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO AMEND COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 MADERA COUNTY, et al., (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jacob Curtis Allen Helm, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a county jail inmate. Plaintiff is presently 19 confined at Atascadero State Hospital. 20 On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion: Request Ammending [sic] 21 defendants.” (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff seeks to amend the named defendants in the complaint “from 22 ‘Madera County, et al.,’ to simply ‘Madera County, California.’” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff makes the 23 request because he feels it “is in the best interests of the Courts for a swift, just, and inexpensive 24 determination in this case” and “to ease the burden of the Courts.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he 25 understands his request “will be the simplest and most effective approach for service of 26 summons.” (Id. at 2.) 27 // // 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on April 12, 2022, names the following Defendants: 3 “Madera County California,” “The State of California,” and “Madera County Jail/Department of 4 Corrections.” (Doc. 1 at 1, 2.) The complaint has not yet been screened. See 28 U.S.C. § 5 1915A(a). 6 Plaintiff appears to be requesting to amend his complaint to name only a single 7 defendant—Madera County, California—to expedite service of process of his complaint. 8 Plaintiff is entitled to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 15(a)(1) once as a matter of course, and without the necessity of a court order. Should Plaintiff 10 elect to amend his complaint, he must submit an amended complaint for filing. Plaintiff is 11 informed that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 12 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, an amended complaint must be “complete in itself 13 without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” See Local Rule 220. However, Plaintiff is 14 cautioned that the amendment he appears to seek will not result in immediate service of process 15 of the complaint in this action. 16 As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil 17 Rights Case, issued April 12, 2022, this Court “is required to screen complaints brought by 18 prisoners seeking relief against a government entity or officer or employee of a governmental 19 entity.” (Doc. 3 at 3 [III. SCREENING OF COMPLAINTS].) Until the Court has screened the 20 complaint and determined Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim or claims against properly 21 named defendants, service of process will not be ordered. (Id.) 22 As noted above, Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. The Court is required to 23 screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court will direct service of 24 process only after Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and found to state cognizable claims 25 for relief. Once the complaint is screened and found to have stated a cognizable claim against any 26 defendant, the Court will provide Plaintiff with any further instructions regarding service of 27 process—Plaintiff need not request service. 1 hundreds of pro se prisoner complaints awaiting screening by the Court and delays are inevitable. 2 Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 3 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the reasons given above, Plaintiff’s motion filed June 23, 2022 (Doc 11) is DENIED 5 without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: July 28, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27