Robertson v. Doe

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 REGINALD ROBERTSON, 11 Case No. 20-02523 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 13

14 1 DOE, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket Nos. 10, 11) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Santa Rita Jail (the “Jail”) in Dublin, California, 19 filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at 20 the Jail.1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis which will be 21 addressed in a separate order. 22 Plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint, in which he provides names 23 for “Doe” Defendants from the original complaint. Dkt. No. 10; Dkt. No. 11 at 2-11. A 24 plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the amended complaint filed under Docket No. 11 26 27 1 supersedes the original complaint and is now the operative complaint in this matter. 2 An amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 3 non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 4 Consequently, claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and 5 defendants not named in the amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Clerk shall terminate 7 Defendants “1 Doe,” “2 Doe,” “3 Doe,” and “ASCO-Technician,” and add as Defendants 8 the following: D. Bussell, J. Alvarez, M. Ella, G. Harris, and C. Wong. Dkt. No. 22 at 3-4. 9 The Court will conduct an initial review of the amended complaint in a separate 10 order in due course. 11 This order terminates Docket Nos. 10 and 11. 3 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 || Dated: _ September 3, 2020 hob Lyn omen) 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

© Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Granting Leave to File Am. Compl. 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\02523Robertson_grant--lta 26 27