Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH ANTHONY HILL, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT MEDICAL SERVICES 

DIVISION; UCSD MEDICAL CENTER; 

ALFRED JOSHUA, M.D., Chief Medical 

Officer, Sheriff's Detention Services 

Bureau; WILLIAM GORE, Sheriff San 

Diego County, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 On July 13, 2015, the district judge adopted this court’s Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) regarding the motions to dismiss filed by William D. Gore and 

the Regents of the University of California. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend with 

respect to these claims: 

1. Claims against Sheriff Gore in his personal capacity; 

2. Claims originally alleged against Sheriff Gore in his official capacity that 

instead can be alleged against the County itself, if Plaintiff seeks to assert a 

Monell claim; and 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3. Claims against UCSD regarding the alleged failure to provide follow-up 

medical care. 

As explained in the June 8 R&R and July 13 Order, the other claims on which two of the 

Defendants moved to dismiss were dismissed without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that his Amended Complaint will supersede, or 

replace, his original Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 1), and that his Amended Complaint must, 

therefore, be complete by itself, name all the parties he intends to sue, and include a 

“short and plain statement” of any and all grounds upon which he claims entitlement to 

relief. See FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 

896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); 

see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). This Court will 

consider “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint [as] waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(citation omitted); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc) (holding that while “claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to 

amend” need not be repled to preserve them in the event of an eventual appeal, “claims 

voluntarily dismissed . . . will [be] consider[ed] . . . waived if not repled.”). 

Thus, Plaintiff should ensure that his Amended Complaint identifies all Defendants 

by name and contains sufficient “factual matter” to show: (1) how and why he believes 

his constitutional rights were violated; and (2) what each individual Defendant did to 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

cause him injury. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-678 (2009). “Because 

vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each 

Government-official defendant, through the official’s own actions, has violated the 

Constitution.” Id. at 676. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be filed with the 

Court no later than Friday, August 28, 2015. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended 

Complaint by that time, the Court will presume he wishes to proceed only with the claims 

already alleged against the Defendants previously identified in his original Complaint 

(ECF Doc. No 1). 

Dated: July 15, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 3