Carroll v. Toele

Opinion

TREMAYNE CARROLL, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00079-BAS-RBM

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S vs. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT [ECF No. 20] AND C/O TOELE, et al., GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE Defendants. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Pending before the Court is a Motion filed by Plaintiff Tremayne Carroll, requesting “Appointment of Counsel and/or [to] Compel RJD/CDCR to Give Access to All Reports.” See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 20 at 1. Carroll filed the motion pro se but has since retained counsel, who has filed a Notice of Appearance and valid substitution on Plaintiff’s behalf. (See ECF No. 23; Civ. L.R. 83.3(f)(2).) Plaintiff’s previously-filed motion is therefore moot. The Court further notes that Plaintiff has already amended his pleading twice: once as a matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) in response to this Court’s June 25, 2020 comprehensive initial screening Order, and again in response to its subsequent Order overruling his objections. (See ECF Nos. 8, 12, 17, 18.) But because Plaintiff did not yet have the benefit of counsel at the time he filed any of his pleadings, his currently operative Second Amended Complaint has yet to be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and no Defendant has yet been served, the Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint now that he is represented. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that “Rule 15(a) is very liberal.”); see also Choquette v. Hammond, Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-05838-BHS-JRC, 2016 WL 11622971, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2016) (deferring ruling on pending motion to dismiss and granting former pro se plaintiff the “opportunity to file a[n amended] complaint with the assistance of counsel” retained after defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed). Conclusion and Order Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED } without prejudice as moot, and Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on or before January 25, 2021.! Dated: December 11, 2020 Cyl. (Doha on. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge ' Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to take this opportunity to amend, the Court will 99 screen his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, dismiss any and all insufficiently pleaded claims, and may deny further leave to amend. Should Plaintiff elect to file a Third Amended Complaint, however, that pleading will supersede all previously-filed complaints and will become the operative complaint going forward. See Civ. L.R. 15.1(a); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”). And while Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, he still proceeds in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 8. Therefore, should counsel seek the assistance of the U.S. Marshal in effecting service upon the Defendants named as 0g parties in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, he must include a request for that service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).