United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REAFFIRMING ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NO. 33) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 35) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY
the court are plaintiff Saiyez Ahmed’s objections to
the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations on
a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 34), and defendants’
request for screening of those objections to the extent they
constitute a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 35). Having
considered plaintiff’s objections and, for the reasons
stated below, this court will reaffirm the order adopting the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The
court will also deny defendants’ motion for screening
of plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
Saiyez Ahmed, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2013. (Doc. No.
1.) The court screened plaintiff’s complaint, found
that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, and dismissed it with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 10.)
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 2,
2013. (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge screened
the first amended complaint and found that it stated
cognizable first amendment retaliation claims against
defendants C.P. Cano, D. Combs, M.C. Davis, M. Martel, and R.
Shannon, but no other claims. (Doc. No. 13.)
was initiated and, on November 15, 2014, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 17.)
On June 29, 2015, the magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the motion to dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 24.) However,
upon consideration of defendants’ objections, the
magistrate judge vacated those findings and recommendations
and thereafter issued new findings and recommendations
recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in its
entirety, but that plaintiff be granted leave to amend. (Doc.
No. 29.) Defendants filed objections to the revised findings
and recommendations. (Doc. No. 30.) Plaintiff sought and
received an extension of time to file his objections. (Doc.
Nos. 31, 32.) However, the extended deadline passed without
plaintiff filing any objection. On October 22, 2015, the then
assigned district court judge adopted the findings and
recommendations in full and ordered plaintiff to file an
amended complaint within thirty days of that order. (Doc. No.
on November 5, 2015, plaintiff’s objections were
received and docketed. (Doc. No. 34.) Those objections are
dated October 11, 2015, and were therefore timely under the
prison mailbox rule. On November 20, 2015, defendants filed a
motion construing the plaintiff’s objections as a
second amended complaint and asking the Court to screen the
purported pleading. (Doc. No. 35.) This matter was then
reassigned to the undersigned on December 4, 2015. (Doc. No.
August 26, 2015, the magistrate judge recommended that
plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed with
leave to amend because documents attached to the complaint
contradicted plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation.
(Doc. No. 29.) Specifically, plaintiff alleged that
defendants subjected him to a retaliatory transfer to an
institution that housed his enemies. However, documents
attached to the complaint reflect that defendants were not
responsible for the transfer decision, and no other facts
linked defendants to that decision.
attempts to cure these deficiencies by presenting new facts
in his objections. However, plaintiff may not plead
additional factual allegations through his objections. A
complaint must be “complete in itself without reference
to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
Indeed, the presentation of additional facts supports the
recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with
leave to amend.
the court reaffirms the order (Doc. No. 33) adopting the
magistrate judge’s revised findings and
recommendations. Plaintiff will be ordered to file an amended
pleading within thirty days of service of this order if he
wishes to continue to pursue this action.
interpret plaintiff’s objections as an amended pleading
and ask that it be screened. (Doc. No. 35.) However, the
objections may not be construed as an amended pleading. The
objections do not contain a list of the defendants, a
description of the causes of action, or a statement of the
relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Nor may
these elements be gleaned by reference to plaintiff’s
prior pleading. Local Rule 220; see also Loux v.
Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (an amended
complaint supersedes a prior complaint). Accordingly,
defendants’ motion for screening will be denied because
plaintiff’s objections do not constitute a second
amended complaint and cannot be construed as such.
on the foregoing:
order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and