The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's April 28, 2010 second amended complaint is before the court.
Rather than submit one complete second amended complaint, it appears plaintiff has attempted to supplement earlier complaints and amended complaints. Plaintiff is advised that leave of court was not granted to supplement his complaint. All complaints must be complete in and of themselves. Moreover, plaintiff's second amended complaint was not signed by plaintiff. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires signatures on pleadings. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff's April 28, 2010 second amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be provided one final opportunity in which to file a third amended complaint that contains all of plaintiff's allegations and requests for relief in one document. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Defendants are relieved of their obligation to file an amended answer or other response pending screening of the third amended complaint.
Plaintiff is hereby informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff shall sign any third amended complaint submitted for filing herein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Because plaintiff has been granted leave to file a third amended complaint, the discovery deadline of May 28, 2010 and the pretrial motions filing deadline of August 20, 2010, contained in the February 24, 2010 scheduling order, will be vacated. A revised scheduling order will issue once defendants have responded to the third amended complaint.
Plaintiff has filed numerous discovery motions which this court will now address: 1. May 17, 2010 Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum On May 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents and things from a non-party. However, it appears some of the documents sought by plaintiff were subsequently provided by defendants through discovery, i.e. copies of the pertinent photographs. (Dkt. 47 at 5-6, Ex. A.) Moreover, in light of the orders that follow, it appears plaintiff may receive additional discovery, and the court will be seeking affidavits from plaintiff's potential witnesses by separate order. In addition, some of plaintiff's requests contained within the subpoena duces tecum suffer from the same defects addressed in plaintiff's May 26, 2010 motion to compel further production of documents from defendants. (See ¶2, at 3, below.) Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with the subpoena duces tecum directed to nonparty will be denied without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 39.)
On May 21, plaintiff filed an application for issuance of subpoena duces tecum based on plaintiff's motion to compel filed May 17, 2010. In light of the ruling on that motion, as well as the court's instant ruling on the May 26, 2010 motion to compel production of documents, plaintiff's May 21, 2010 application will be denied without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 41.)
2. May 26, 2010 Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to provide all documents responsive to requests one through four and six through eight.
Request No. 1: Any and all documents related to training of Defendants within the meaning of California Code of Regulations, Article 4, Section 3300 (CCR), including but not limited to types of training, the time of completion, and format of the directives, is relevant to the allegation in the complaint, at paragraphs 15 and 40, . . . .
(Mot. at 2-3.) Defendants objected on the grounds the request was overly broad and irrelevant.
Defendants' objections are well-taken. Despite plaintiff's contention that "[i]n plaintiff's demand at page 3, he gave notice to defendants that each request specifically related to the incident as pleaded in his Complaint, filed on March 25, 2009" (Mot. at 3), plaintiff failed to identify the specific training for which he was seeking documents. Defendants' objections are sustained, and plaintiff's motion to compel further response to this request will be denied.
Request No. 2: Any and all reports by Solano personnel to the occurrence of the incident, including but not limited to investigative reports, incident reports and supplements thereto, is relevant to the subject matter as alleged in the complaint at paragraph's 14, 26, 37, 38 and 39, . . . . (Mot. at 3.) Defendants objected on the grounds that it invaded the privacy rights of other inmates, are deemed confidential under Cal. Code Reg., tit. 15, § 3370(d), and are subject to a qualified privilege as official information. (Opp'n at 3.) Despite these objections, defendants provided plaintiff with two administrative segregation unit placements and a medical report of injury or unusual occurrence for plaintiff, a staff report by defendant Solarzano relating to the incident in question, and a staff report by Her relating to the incident in question. (Id.)
Defendants maintain they have produced all documents within their possession, custody or control to plaintiff. Plaintiff has not identified any other documents he seeks responsive to this request. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request No. 2 will be denied.
Request No. 3: Any and all transcripts or minute orders related to the occurrence of the incident, is relevant to the subject matter as alleged in the complaint at paragraph's 36, 37 and 38, . . . . (Mot. at 4.) Defendants responded that they have no such document in their possession, custody or control. Plaintiff claims inmates Sprague and Carroll were removed from administrative segregation and taken out to court to answer for criminal charges related to the March 10, 2008 incident on plaintiff. (Id.) Defendants counter that the request fails to identify same. Defendants' objection is well-taken. However, good cause appearing, defendants will be required to provide plaintiff with the criminal case numbers, and court's name and address, where inmates Sprague and Carroll were charged with any criminal charges related to the March 10, 2008 incident so that plaintiff may seek records directly from that court, as it may lead to relevant evidence herein. If no criminal charges were levied against either Sprague or Carroll, defendants shall provide a declaration stating same. Thus, plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request No. 3 will be partially granted.
Request No. 4: Any and all statements, in any form, of persons who witnessed or claim to have witnessed the incident, and/or the events immediately prior to or subsequent to the incident. . . . (Mot. at 4.) Defendants objected on the grounds that it invaded the privacy rights of other inmates, the documents are deemed confidential, or are subject to a qualified privilege as official information. Despite their objections, defendants provided plaintiff with "two administrative segregation unit placements and a medical report of injury or unusual occurrence for Inmate Carr; a staff report by Solorzano; and a staff report by Her," which defendants claim are all responsive documents in their possession, ...