Opinion
22-CV0449LHSG
01-27-2023
RODNEY VICTOR COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. T. ALLEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 11
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison - Los Angeles, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where he was previously housed. On October 13, 2022, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for the following reasons. The complaint's allegations were vague and conclusory; the complaint failed to link any defendant directly to an alleged constitutional Violation; generally speaking, there is no Section 1983 liability merely because a prison official reviewed and denied Plaintiff's grievances; the complaint's allegations regarding Warden Allen and Chief Deputy Warden Binkele failed to allege Section 1983 liability; the complaint's allegations that state law and prison policies were violated failed to state a Section 1983 claim; the complaint's allegations were insufficient to state a claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See generally Dkt. No. 7.
Plaintiff has filed a motion titled “Leave to Amend,” where he addresses some of the concerns raised in the Court's October 13, 2022 screening order. ECF No. 11. This pleading does not name defendants or list causes of actions. This pleading also requires the Court to refer to both the original complaint and the Court's October 13, 2022 screening order. This pleading therefore cannot serve as an amended complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff a final extension of time to March 13, 2023, to file an amended complaint.
In addition, this pleading repeats claims that the Court has previously informed Plaintiff do not state a Section 1983 claim, such as alleging that prison officials have failed to follow prison policies and alleging that prison officials are liable because they denied his grievances. See Dkt. No. 11 at 2-3.
Plaintiff has now been granted a total of five months to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 8, 10.
An amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). An amended complaint therefore must be complete in and of itself, and may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. The Court encourages Plaintiff to use the court form complaint. In filling out the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint or prior pleadings by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court's complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.