(PC) Baker v. Solorano

Opinion

MILLARD WAYNE BAKER, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-01096-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING THE DECEMBER 22, v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AN SOLORANO, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. ECF No. 24 On December 22, 2022, I screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against defendants Solorano, Morris, and six Doe defendants. ECF No. 14. I also recommended that plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim against the seventh Doe defendant be dismissed as unrelated. Id. Plaintiff has since filed a motion asking the court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims. ECF No. 24. In light of plaintiff’s motion, I will vacate my December 22 findings and recommendations and allow plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that includes his state law claims and any other claims that he wishes to pursue in this action. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The December 22, 2022 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 14, are vacated. 2. Plaintiffs motion for supplemental jurisdiction, ECF No. 24, is construed as a motion to file an amended complaint. 3. Plaintiffs motion to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 24, is granted. 4. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of issuance of this order. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a form complaint. ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ February 22, 2023 q-—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE