Opinion
24-cv-01714 BLF (PR)
08-08-2024
NARCISO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING RENEWED REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 40)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is currently confined at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened the second amended complaint (“SAC”) and dismissed it with leave to amend to attempt to correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 39.
Plaintiff requests additional time to file an amended complaint due to physical and mental health problems that requires the help of other inmates and pending matters in another case. Dkt. No. 40. Good cause appearing, the request for more time is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed.
Plaintiff renews his request for appointment of counsel which was previously denied. Dkt. No. 39 at 4-5. Plaintiff sets forth no new grounds for this Court to reconsider that decision. Accordingly, the request for counsel is DENIED without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
The third amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR), and the words “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. The third amended complaint supersedes the original and previous amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not make references to those complaints, which will be treated as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in the third amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named therein are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992).
In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice to proceed on the cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Hernandez, Saetevrn, and Sivongsa and strike all other claims and defendants from the SAC. Dkt. No. 39 at 5-6.
Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a third amended complaint or notice in the time provided will result in this matter proceeding solely on the excessive force claim identified above and all other defendants and claims being dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to state a claim for relief without further notice to Plaintiff.
This order terminates Docket No. 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.