Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04045/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04045-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVE POTTER, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-04045-EDL 

ORDER REGARDING DKT. NO. 

14 

 On September 4, 2015, pro se plaintiff Perfecto Garcia filed a complaint against the City 

of Napa, the Police Chief, and various individual officers. This Court granted Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend. In the order dismissing the complaint, the Court required Plaintiff to clearly state the basis 

for federal court jurisdiction and make clear which factual allegations and claims relate to which 

defendants, and stated that the amended complaint should not contain factual allegations 

previously addressed in the Court’s order dismissing the earlier related case with prejudice. 

 On October 14, 2015, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint that minimally complied 

with the Court’s order. On October 20, 2015, the Court ordered that the amended complaint be 

served on Defendant. On November 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “First 

Amendment.” See Dkt. No. 14. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (a), a party may 

amend its pleading once as a matter of course under certain circumstances, and in all other cases a 

party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s consent or leave of court, which 

should be given when justice so requires. Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint, so he 

may not amend again “as a matter of course.” See 15(a)(1). Further, Plaintiff has not obtained 

Defendant’s consent to the amendment or requested leave of Court to file an amended complaint 

Case 3:15-cv-04045-EDL Document 15 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

as required by Rule 15(a)(2). If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must seek leave 

of this Court to do so, and provide an explanation as to why leave should be granted. 

 Additionally, Plaintiff’s “First Amendment” does not comply with Local Civil Rule 10-1, 

which requires that “[a]ny party filing or moving to file an amended pleading must reproduce the 

entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference. 

Plaintiff shall comply with this rule if he seeks leave to file an amended complaint. 

 Finally, Plaintiff’s “First Amendment” attaches a subpoena to Defendant. Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before 

the parties have conferred as Required by Rule 26(f) . . .” There is no indication that the parties 

have conducted a Rule 26(f) conference, especially given that Defendant was only served on 

October 29, 2015, and this discovery is therefore premature and should not be served. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 6, 2015 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 3:15-cv-04045-EDL Document 15 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PERFECTO BAUER GARCIA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVE POTTER, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-04045-EDL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on November 6, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached order, 

by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, 

by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office 

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Perfecto Bauer Garcia

2006 Swan Way

Fairfield, CA 94533 

Dated: November 6, 2015 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Stephen Ybarra, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

Case 3:15-cv-04045-EDL Document 15 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3