Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MINH CONG DO, Case No. 23-cv-05906 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS 15 HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. 16 (Docket No. 14)

18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “CDCR Officers,” “CDCR Nurses,” “CDCR Doctors,” and the 20 “California Corrections Health Care Services.” Dkt. No. 8. On April 2, 2024, the Court 21 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff was directed to file a 22 response within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed, which was April 30, 23 2024. Id. at 5. 24 The Court notes that on April 16, 2024, the mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as 25 undeliverable. Dkt. No. 13. The Clerk resent a copy of the court order on April 17, 2024. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint due 27 to a delay in mail delivery is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff shall file a response to 1 || the Court’s initial review order no later than twenty-eight days from the date this order is 2 || filed. 3 The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 4 || order, i.e., Case No. C 23-cv-05906 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED 5 || COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer 6 || all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. The amended complaint 7 || supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. 8 || Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not g || included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an 10 || amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 11 || (9th Cir.1992). 2 Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided will E 13 || result in the dismissal with prejudice of this action for failure to state a claim for 14 relief. 8 15 This order terminates Docket No. 14. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: May 21,2024 hacncan _ 5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || guecne facets om 26 27