Ramirez v. Gutierrez

S.D. California

Ramirez v. Gutierrez

DecidedApril 22, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01109

StatusUnknown

This text of Ramirez v. Gutierrez (Ramirez v. Gutierrez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ramirez v. Gutierrez, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIVER RAMIREZ, Case No. 20cv1109-MMA-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 vs. LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 R. GUTIERREZ, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 21] 16 17 Plaintiff Aliver Ramirez, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 18 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff requests leave 19 to file a First Amended Complaint “to correct any pleading deficiencies, proper 20 presentation of syntax, sentence construction and facts more congruent to the allegations 21 raised against the three (3) defendants in this case.” See Doc. No. 21 at 1. In light of 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy and because the time 23 for doing so has not yet expired, see Doc. No. 19, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to 24 file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file his amended pleading on or before 25 May 28, 2021, the deadline set forth in the operative Scheduling Order, id. § 1, or 26 demonstrate good cause if he fails to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). 27 The Court advises Plaintiff that his First Amended Complaint must be complete by 28 itself without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not 1 || re-alleged in his amended pleading will be considered waived. See CIVLR 15.1; Hal 2 || Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) 3 || (‘[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 4 || 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not 5 || re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||DATED: April 22, 2021 Wt whl Me □□□ hphle 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIVER RAMIREZ, Case No. 20cv1109-MMA-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 vs. LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 R. GUTIERREZ, et al.,

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 21] 16 17 Plaintiff Aliver Ramirez, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 18 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff requests leave 19 to file a First Amended Complaint “to correct any pleading deficiencies, proper 20 presentation of syntax, sentence construction and facts more congruent to the allegations 21 raised against the three (3) defendants in this case.” See Doc. No. 21 at 1. In light of 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy and because the time 23 for doing so has not yet expired, see Doc. No. 19, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to 24 file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file his amended pleading on or before 25 May 28, 2021, the deadline set forth in the operative Scheduling Order, id. § 1, or 26 demonstrate good cause if he fails to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). 27 The Court advises Plaintiff that his First Amended Complaint must be complete by 28 itself without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not 1 || re-alleged in his amended pleading will be considered waived. See CIVLR 15.1; Hal 2 || Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) 3 || (‘[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 4 || 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not 5 || re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||DATED: April 22, 2021 Wt whl Me □□□ hphle 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramirez v. Gutierrez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-gutierrez-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack