United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO AMEND PETITION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FILING AN AMENDED PETITION; DENYING REQUEST FOR
COURT TO ORDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION RE: ECF NO. 5,
TIGAR, WED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
California, has filed the instant pro se action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's requests
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis have been
granted in a separate order. Now pending before the Court are
Plaintiff's request that the Court order that the
California Attorney General and or the United States Attorney
General criminally investigate certain officers, some of whom
are named defendants (ECF No. 5), and Plaintiff's motion
to amend the petition to add evidence and additional
defendants (ECF No. 6). For the following reasons, both
motions are DENIED.
Request for Criminal Investigation of Defendants
has requested that the Court order either the California
Attorney General or the United States Attorney General to
initiate a criminal investigation against Officers Sisemore,
Mena, Thompson, Colvin, Fitch, Santiago, Campaigne,
Rodriguez, and Hoffman. ECF No. 5. He alleges that these
officers have conspired to extend his incarceration beyond
his lawful release date of June 22, 2019. Id.
Court construes this as a request for preliminary injunctive
relief. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order
injunctive relief which would require directing parties not
before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States
Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719,
727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an
injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties
and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not
attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the
court.”); cf. United States v. Arpaio, 906
F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2018) (executive, not judicial
branch, is endowed with prosecutorial power; court's
authority to appoint special prosecutor is extremely limited
and is authorized only when necessary to vindicate the
court's own authority). The Court therefore cannot order
the California Attorney General or the United States Attorney
General to take action. Furthermore, the request for
investigation is outside the scope of relief available in
this action. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff's request for a criminal investigation of these
officers is DENIED. ECF No. 5.
Motion to Amend the Petition to Add Evidence and
motion to add certain defendants and evidence in a piecemeal
fashion is DENIED. ECF No. 6. If Plaintiff wishes to add
defendants, claims, or evidence, he must file an amended
complaint that is complete within itself. The Court will not
attempt to determine Plaintiff's claims by scouring
various pleadings in the action.
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, Plaintiff has not yet amended the complaint.
Accordingly, the denial of Plaintiff's motion to add
certain defendants and evidence in a piecemeal fashion is
without prejudice to filing an amended complaint that is
complete within itself.
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. The Court cautions Plaintiff
that his complaint need only satisfy the standard set forth
in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
requires only a short and plain statement of the claim(s)
showing entitlement to relief; and a demand for the relief
sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. At the pleading stage, Plaintiff is
not required to submit evidence to support his claim, and the
Court will not act as a depository for prematurely filed
evidence. The time to support a claim with evidence is in
support of, or in opposition to, a dispositive motion; or at
shall be granted twenty-eight (28) days in which to file an
amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not wish to file an
amended complaint, he must so notify the Court within
twenty-eight (28) days, which will result in the complaint
docketed at ECF No. 1 remaining the operative complaint.
foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for a
criminal investigation of Officers Sisemore, Mena, Thompson,
Colvin, Fitch, Santiago, Campaigne, Rodriguez, and Hoffman by
either the California Attorney General or the United States
Attorney General. ECF No. 5. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs
request to amend his complaint to add certain defendants and
evidence prejudice, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an
amended complaint. ECF No. 6. If Plaintiff wishes to file an
amended complaint, he shall do so within twenty-eight (28)
days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff does not file an
amended complaint within twenty-eight days, ...