DeEarl Foster v. Aidana Ramirez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02036
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DeEARL FOSTER, No. 2:24-CV-2036-DJC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AIDANA RAMIREZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consistent with the District Judge’s October 24, 2025, order, Plaintiff may file 19 a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Pending submission of a 20 second amended complaint, the Court’s September 18, 2025, order directing service of the first 21 amended complaint by the United States Marshall will be vacated. 22 Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 23 original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if 24 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 25 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 26 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 2 || conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See 3 || Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 4 | each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between 5 || each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 6 || (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 7 Because the first amended complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims 8 | against Defendant Aldana Ramirez, if no second amended complaint is filed within the time 9 || allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and recommendations that Defendant Sacramento 10 || County District Attorney’s Office be dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for 11 | service of process as to the cognizable claims. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 1. The Court’s September 18, 2025, order, ECF No. 18, is vacated. 14 2. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date 15 || of service of this order. 16 17 | Dated: October 28, 2025 Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28