Ramirez v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 NARCISO RAMIREZ, 9 Case No. 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 11 v. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING RENEWED REQUEST 12 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

13 Defendants. (Docket No. 40)

15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is currently confined at Kern Valley State Prison 17 (KVSP), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 18 Court screened the second amended complaint (“SAC”) and dismissed it with leave to 19 amend to attempt to correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 39. 20 Plaintiff requests additional time to file an amended complaint due to physical and 21 mental health problems that requires the help of other inmates and pending matters in 22 another case. Dkt. No. 40. Good cause appearing, the request for more time is 23 GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint no later than twenty-eight 24 (28) days from the date this order is filed. 25 Plaintiff renews his request for appointment of counsel which was previously 26 denied. Dkt. No. 39 at 4-5. Plaintiff sets forth no new grounds for this Court to reconsider 27 that decision. Accordingly, the request for counsel is DENIED without prejudice for lack 1 |} 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell 2 || v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 The third amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used 4 || in this order, i.e., Case No. C 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR), and the words “THIRD 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 third amended 7 || complaint supersedes the original and previous amended complaints, and Plaintiff may not 8 || make references to those complaints, which will be treated as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. 9 || Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not 10 || included in the third amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named 11 therein are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 12 Cir.1992). 5 13 In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice to proceed on the cognizable excessive S 14 force claim against Defendants Hernandez, Saetevrn, and Sivongsa and strike all other 3 15 || claims and defendants from the SAC. Dkt. No. 39 at 5-6. A 16 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing a third amended 3 17 || complaint or notice in the time provided will result in this matter proceeding solely 18 on the excessive force claim identified above and all other defendants and claims 19 || being dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to state a claim for relief 20 || without further notice to Plaintiff. 1 This order terminates Docket No. 14. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ August 8,2024 fouInfhccnan 54 BETH LAB SON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 |! Order Granting EOT; Denying Appt of Counsel PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\01714Ramirez_eot-ac 26 27