(PC) Nedd v. Landon

Opinion

JEFFEREY S. NEDD, Case No. 1:23-cv-01630-HBK (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. (Doc. No. 9) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ACCEPT Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S LODGED AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT AND TITLE IT PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 12) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY INCORPORATED THEREIN

(Doc. No. 12)

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 13)

This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Pending review before the Court are several pleadings filed by pro se Plaintiff Jefferey S. Nedd. These include a Second Amended Complaint filed November 29, 2023 (Doc. No. 9); two lodged Amended Civil Rights Complaints filed December 5, 2023 (Doc. Nos. 12, 13); a motion for production of documents incorporated with the lodged Amended Civil Rights Complaint, (Doc. Nos. 12, 13); and Plaintiff’s declaration (Doc. No. 14), to which are attached several pages of exhibits. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) as mooted by Plaintiff’s subsequent lodged Amended Complaints (Doc. Nos. 12, 13), strike the unsigned lodged Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13), and deem the signed lodged Amended Complaint the operative pleading and direct the Clerk to properly label the pleading as Plaintiff’s “Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 12, “TAC”). The Court liberally construes Doc. No. 14 as a declaration and exhibits in support of the TAC. A. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff submitted for docketing a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 9). It appears Plaintiff submitted the Second Amended Complaint prior to receiving the Court’s November 28, 2023 Screening Order. (Doc. No. 8). Moreover, Plaintiff subsequently filed two later pleadings designated as “Amended Civil Rights Complaints,” thus the mooting his earlier filed Second Amended Complaint. B. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff lodged an Amended Civil Rights Complaint, which includes a pleading titled “Motion for Production of Docunients [sic] to Identify John Doe Defendants.” (Doc. No. 12). As this is the later-filed amended complaint and properly signed in compliance with Rule 11, the Court will direct the Clerk to accept the lodged Amended Complaint and properly title it Plaintiff’s “Third Amended Complaint,” which the Court deems as the operative complaint in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). As to Plaintiff’s Motion contained therein, because it requests the production of documents, the Court construes it as a Motion for Discovery. In the interest of judicial economy, however, the Court typically does not begin the discovery process until the operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants have been served, and those defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, 2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2022). Plaintiff’s retitled Third Amended Complaint has not yet been screened and no defendants have been served in this action. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery is therefore premature and will be denied without prejudice. C. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13) Also on December 5, 2023, Plaintiff lodged another Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13) that appears to be duplicative of the Amended Complaint filed the same day (Doc. No. 12), except that it lacks a signature. Rule 11 requires all pleadings, written motions, and other papers be signed by at least one attorney of record or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); see also Local Rule 131(b). The Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s unsigned proposed amended complaint and is required to strike it. See, e.g., West v. Hulbert, 2016 WL 2854416, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) (“Because the Court cannot consider unsigned filings, the complaint must be STRICKEN”); Anderson v. Krpan, 2015 WL 402086, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (“The Court cannot consider unsigned filings and therefore, the first amended complaint shall be stricken from the record.”). Here, Plaintiff’s lodged Amended Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. No. 13) is unsigned, in violation of Rule 11 and Local Rule 131(b). Moreover, it is otherwise duplicative of Plaintiff’s previous lodged Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) filed the same day, which is signed. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to strike the unsigned lodged Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13). D. Plaintiff’s Declaration and Exhibits (Doc. No. 14) Finally, on December 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Declaration of Jefferey Nedd RE: Missing Mail.” (Doc. No. 14). The pleading attaches several exhibits, including what appear to be docket summaries for (1) Plaintiff’s federal habeas petition and (2) Ninth Circuit appeal, (3) a copy of an Office of Grievances Decision regarding Plaintiff’s interference with mail claim, (4) a letter from attorney Richard Fitzer, and (5) a copy of a July 25, 2023 Order from the Ninth Circuit denying Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appealability. (Id. at 4-18). The Court liberally construes the pleading as a declaration and related exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12), and the Court will consider these exhibits when it screens the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Court disregards Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) as mooted by his later filed Amended Civil Rights Complaints. 2. The Clerk of Court shall file and docket Plaintiff's lodged Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12) and title the pleading as Plaintiff's “Third Amended Complaint.” 3. The Court DENIES as premature Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 12 at 7). 4. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff's unsigned Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13). 5. The Court construes Plaintiffs declaration and exhibits (Doc. No. 14) as filed in support of Plaintiff's retitled Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12). 6. The Court will screen Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12), which the Court deems to be the operative complaint, in due course. "| Dated: _ March 5, 2024 Wile. □□□ foareh Zack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE