United States District Court, E.D. California
ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Plaintiff,
GALLAGHER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST AS IMPROPERLY
FILED IN THIS CASE (ECF No. 9.) ORDER INFORMING PLAINTIFF HE
HAS LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT ONCE AS A MATTER OF COURSE
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO EITHER: (1) FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO PROCEED
WITH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND COMPLAINT
FORM TO PLAINTIFF
S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
J. Patillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint awaits the
Court's requisite screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
No other parties have appeared in this case.
is also proceeding with another pending civil rights case,
case number 1:16-cv-00488-AWI-MJS-PC; Petillo v. J.L.
Peterson (Petillo I), which was filed with this court on
April 7, 2016. (Court Record.) On January 2, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a request in Petillo I for the court to accept
twenty-two pages of attached documents. (Petillo I,
ECF No. 42.) On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff notified the court
in Petillo I that he meant to file his January 2,
2018, request in the present case, 1:18-cv-00217-GSA-PC;
Petillo v. X. Galliger (Petillo II). (Petillo I. ECF
No. 47.) Thereafter, on Plaintiff's instructions,
Plaintiff's request was filed in this case. (Petillo
II, ECF No. 9.)
request for the court to accept documents is now before the
has represented to the court that on January 2, 2018, he
filed a request in Petillo I, but instead meant to
file the request in Petillo II. Plaintiff's
representation is a little mystifying. Moreover, it would
have been difficult for Plaintiff to have filed his request
in Petillo II on January 2, 2018, as Petillo
II was not filed until February 28, 2018. Therefore,
Plaintiff's January 2, 2018, request shall be
stricken from the record as improperly filed in
AMENDING THE COMPLAINT - RULE 15(a) AND
LOCAL RULE 220
extent that Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint in this
action by adding exhibits to the Complaint, Plaintiff must
first file a new First Amended Complaint which is complete
within itself. Under Local Rule 220,  Plaintiff may not amend the
Complaint by adding information piecemeal after the Complaint
has already been filed. To add information or exhibits, or to
correct an error in the Complaint, Plaintiff must file a new
First Amended Complaint which is complete within itself.
may file an amended complaint at this stage of the
proceedings without leave of court. Under Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the
party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time
before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party
may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of
the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when
justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Here, because
Plaintiff has not previously amended the Complaint and no
responsive pleading has been served in this action, Plaintiff
has leave to file an amended complaint as a matter of course.
Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file a
First Amended Complaint, making the needed changes.
must demonstrate in his amended complaint how the conditions
complained of have resulted in a deprivation of
Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v.
Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended
complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or
connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed
deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 36 (1976);
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th
Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original
complaint 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.
should note that although he has the opportunity to amend, it
is not for the purpose of adding allegations of events
occurring after March 27, 2017, the date the initial
Complaint was filed. Plaintiff may not change the nature of
this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended