United States District Court, E.D. California
M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
are the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s motions for
discovery (ECF Nos. 9, 13, and 17); (2) plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 18); (3)
plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 20); (4) plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a
summons (ECF No. 21); and (5) plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend (ECF No. 23).
action currently proceeds on plaintiff’s original
complaint, filed on June 26, 2019. See ECF No. 1. On
July 1, 2019, the court issued a screening order identifying
the following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim related to
plaintiff’s housing, an Eighth Amendment excessive
force claim, and a due process claim related to a
disciplinary hearing. See ECF No. 5, pg. 2. The
court determined plaintiff’s complaint stated a
cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force against defendant
Morgan but otherwise failed to state any other claim against
any defendants. See id. at 3-6. Plaintiff was
permitted leave to file a second amended complaint and
informed that the action would proceed on the original
complaint against defendant Morgan if he failed to do so
within the time provided. See id. at 6-8.
15, 2019, plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint.
See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then filed another pleading
entitled “First Amended Complaint” on August 19,
2018. See ECF No. 11. On September 9, 2019,
plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Second Amended
Complaint.” See ECF No. 15. On September 9,
2019, plaintiff filed another pleading entitled “First
Amended Complaint, ” see ECF No. 19, along
with the pending motion for an extension of time, in which
plaintiff seeks additional time to amend his claims,
see ECF No. 18, and motion for leave to amend,
see ECF No. 23.
Leave to Amend
the filings outlined above, the following three amended
pleadings are before the court, all having been filed since
the court issued the July 1, 2019, screening order:
Amended Pleading 1 – “First Amended
Complaint” filed July 15, 2019.
Amended Pleading 2 – “Second Amended
Complaint” filed August 19, 2019.
Amended Pleading 3 – “First Amended
Complaint” filed September 9, 2019.
Pleading 1 was apparently filed in response to the
court’s screening order and supersedes the original
complaint. Amended Pleading 2 was filed as-of-right under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and supersedes Amended
Pleading 1. Good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff’s
motion for further leave to amend, filed with Amended
Pleading 3 on September 9, 2019, will be granted. This action
will proceed on Amended Pleading 3, which the Clerk of the
Court will be directed to docket as plaintiff’s second
motion for an extension of time to amend will be denied as
unnecessary because there is no indication plaintiff delayed
in seeking responding to the ...