Alireza Salehi v. City of Carlsbad, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Alireza SALEMI, Case No.: 25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF 20, 21, 22), DENYING 5 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., OPPOSITION (ECF 57), AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 7 Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 8 (ECF 61)

9 Unrepresented plaintiff Alireza Salemi alleges that various government entities are 10 violating his constitutional rights. Defendants City of Carlsbad, San Diego County District 11 Attorney’s Office, and Encinitas Union School District moved to dismiss the complaint. 12 But those motions are mooted by plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 13 A plaintiff “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” within “21 days 14 after service” of the responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed his first 15 amended complaint past that deadline—just over a month after the responsive pleadings 16 were filed. (See ECF 20, 21, 22 (motions to dismiss); ECF 44 (first amended complaint).) 17 “In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court’s 18 orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Hupp v. San Diego County, No. 12- 19 cv-0492-GPC-RBB, 2014 WL 1404510, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2014). Yet it is “our 20 obligation[], where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, . . . to afford 21 the [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 22 (cleaned up)). In keeping with that sentiment, courts sometimes extend unrepresented 23 plaintiffs a one-time exception to court deadlines or rules. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. GEM 24 Funding, LLC, No. 5:21-cv-8641-EJD, 2022 WL 18539354, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) 25 (granting pro se litigant a “one-time extension” of deadline to allow him to “familiarize 26 himself with the deadlines set out in the Civil Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure”); Miletak v. Acuity Mut. Ins. Co., No. 22-cv-0633-BLF, 2022 WL 2119123, 28 1 at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2022) (“grant[ing]” pro se plaintiff “a one-time” “extension” and 2 accepting a late filing). The Court will do so here and accept plaintiff’s late-filed amended 3 complaint. But plaintiff Salemi must immediately read and become familiar with the 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s own 5 Civil Chambers Rules. Plaintiff will not be afforded a second exception to this Court’s 6 orders or deadlines. 7 Because the Court has accepted the first amended complaint, it need not consider the 8 original complaint nor any motions related to it. An “amended complaint supersedes the 9 original complaint” and becomes the “operative pleading.” CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, 10 16 F.4th 1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). So, “any previously-filed motions to 11 dismiss are moot.” Hearn v. Truesdale, No. 1:24-cv-00326-DCN, 2025 WL 711746, at *1 12 (D. Idaho Mar. 5, 2025); see also Teed v. Chen, No. 22-cv-02862-CRB, 2023 WL 13 2277104, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023) (“Any motion to dismiss attacking an original 14 complaint when an amended complaint has been filed is moot.”). 15 Finally, plaintiff also requests leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF 61, 16 at 1.) This Court must “freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“[L]eave to amend 18 ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.”). Leave to 19 amend should only be denied when it “would prejudice the opposing party, produce an 20 undue delay in the litigation, or result in futility for lack of merit.” See Jackson v. Bank of 21 Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Given the modest changes in the second 22 amended complaint and the early stage of the litigation, the Court finds that the defense 23 would suffer no unfair prejudice by responding to the latest complaint, nor would accepting 24 that updated complaint unduly delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the main change 25 reflected in the newest complaint—naming all the alleged defendants—is not a futile 26 amendment. The already-filed second amended complaint is accepted. 27 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 28 1. The defense motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot. 1 2. Plaintiff's request for leave to file an opposition is DENIED as moot. 2 3. The already-filed opposition (ECF 59) is STRICKEN. 3 4. Plaintiffs motion to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. The second 4 ||amended complaint (ECF 62) is accepted. By July 1, 2026, the defense must respond to— 5 || or file pre-answer motions to—the second amended complaint. 6 5. Plaintiff Salemi must immediately read and become familiar with the Federal 7 ||Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s own Civil 8 ||Chambers Rules. The Local Rules and Chambers Rules are available on the Court’s 9 || website. 10 || Dated: June 17, 2026

12 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28