Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01446-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS, GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR THE CLERK 

TO ISSUE SUMMONSES FOR THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT CATE’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF No. 16, 17, 18)

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONSES AND 

REGULAR CIVIL INITIAL CASE 

DOCUMENTS IN THIS ACTION

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Raymond Mendez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ¶ 1983, filed a complaint on September 10, 2013. 

(ECF No. 1.) On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state a 

claim against Dr. Steven Smith for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 

10.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he was 

willing to proceed on claims found to be cognizable in the screening order. (ECF No. 10.) On 

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2

June 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney and he is now represented by counsel in 

this action. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) 

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On July 20, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to issue summonses on the first amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 17.) On July 28, 2015, Defendant Cate filed a motion to dismiss for failure to properly 

serve the complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On August 3, 2015, an order issued reassigning the 

magistrate judge in this action. (ECF No. 19.) 

II.

REQUEST TO ISSUE SUMMONSES

Plaintiff brings his first amended complaint against Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr.;

Matthew Cate; and Martin Biter alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence 

under California law due to housing him at Kern Valley State Fever where he contracted Valley 

Fever. 

Plaintiff was informed in the February 23, 2015 screening order that his amended 

complaint would supersede the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without reference 

to the prior complaint. (ECF No. 10 at 30.) In his request to issue summonses for the first 

amended complaint, Plaintiff states that he has removed a number of defendants that were 

included in the initial complaint from the action and added different defendants. (ECF No. 17 at 

¶ 4.) Since Plaintiff is now represented by counsel who prepared the first amended complaint,

the Court finds that Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all causes of action alleged in the original 

complaint which were not alleged in the amended complaint, including the cognizable retaliation 

claim. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). According, those claims 

against defendants raised in the original complaint which were not realleged in the first amended 

complaint are dismissed from this action without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is requesting that the Court issue summonses on the first amended complaint. It 

is the practice of this Court to issue summonses without screening complaints when the prisoner 

is represented by counsel. The Court shall direct the Office of the Clerk to issue summonses for 

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

the first amended complaint. 

III.

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant Cate has filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5) due to insufficient service of process. In his 

motion, Defendant Cate notes that Plaintiff has filed a request for the Court to issue summonses 

which has not yet been addressed. Since the Court is directing the Clerk’s Office to issue 

summonses in this action, Defendant Cate’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process 

shall be denied as moot. Plaintiff shall be ordered to properly serve the summons and complaint 

in this action.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical care, § 

1983 failure-to-train, First Amendment retaliation, and state tort claims 

against healthcare providers at Kern Valley State Prison and Sierra 

Conservation Center are dismissed from this action without leave to 

amend;

2. Defendants Dr. Steven Smith, Karen D. Callender, D. Gellman, E.

Garrovillo, O’Leary, and T. Day are dismissed from this action; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for the Court to issue summonses on the first amended 

complaint is granted;

4. Defendant Cate’s motion to dismiss for failure to properly serve the 

complaint is denied as moot; 

5. The Officer of the Clerk is directed to issue summonses on the first 

amended complaint and to issue regular civil initial case documents in this 

action; 

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

6. Within twenty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

properly serve the first amended complaint; and

7. Failure to serve the first amended complaint in compliance with this order 

will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to 

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 4, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 4