From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flores v. Murphy

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Mar 22, 2022
21-cv-07851-VKD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)

Opinion

21-cv-07851-VKD

03-22-2022

DAVIN WILLIE FLORES, Plaintiff, v. E. MURPHY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

RE: DKT. NO. 16

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Davin Willie Flores, Jr., a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action against defendants “Classification Sergeant” E. Murphy, “Classification” Deputy E. Arteaga, and “West County and Martinez Detention facility medical staff” based on their actions while Mr. Flores was housed at the Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”). Dkt. No. 1. On February 24, 2022, the Court screened the complaint and found it failed to state a claim as to all named defendants. Dkt. No. 15. Mr. Flores was granted leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies no later than March 25, 2022. Id.

On March 21, 2022, Mr. Flores filed a request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint because he did not receive the Court's initial screening order until March 14, 2022. Dkt. No. 16. Good cause appearing, the request is GRANTED.

Mr. Flores may file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies discussed in the court's screening order by no later than April 22, 2022. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 21-cv-07851 VKD, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Mr. Flores must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed.

Mr. Flores is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

If Mr. Flores fails to file an amended complaint in time, or the amended complaint fails to cure all defects described above, the Court may issue an order reassigning the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Flores v. Murphy

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Mar 22, 2022
21-cv-07851-VKD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)
Case details for

Flores v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:DAVIN WILLIE FLORES, Plaintiff, v. E. MURPHY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Mar 22, 2022

Citations

21-cv-07851-VKD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)