Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02207/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02207-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL C. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

EL CERRITO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CHI LEE; MARIO

GUZMAN,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2207 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

OF TIME; DENYING MOTION FOR

TRANSFER

(Dkt. 10, 11)

This is a pro se civil rights case filed by a California prisoner. It was originally assigned

to United States Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal. On September 7, 2015, and based on plaintiff’s

consent to his jurisdiction, Judge Grewal found that the complaint stated cognizable claims

against defendants Chi Lee and Mario Guzman at the El Cerrito Police Department (dkt. 6). 

The claims against the El Cerrito Police Department were dismissed, but plaintiff was given 30

days to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in those claims (ibid.). Lee and

Guzman returned service waivers, and declined Judge Grewal’s jurisdiction. The case was then

reassigned to the undersigned. 

Defendants have filed a motion to transfer this case from the San Jose Division to the

San Francisco Division. This request is DENIED as moot because the reassignment of the case

has already caused the case to be located in the San Francisco Division. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time. Although he does not indicate what

deadline he wants extended, it is assumed he means the deadline for amending his complaint

Case 3:15-cv-02207-WHA Document 18 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

because that is only deadline he has been given. Good cause appearing, he may have until

November 25, 2015 to file an amended complaint to state a cognizable claim against the El

Cerrito Police Department. If he does file an amended complaint, he must follow these

instructions or the amended complaint will not be considered:

The amended complaint must include the caption used in this order and the civil case

number C 15-2207 WHA (PR) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

(9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the

dismissal of the claims against the El Cerrito Police Department.

In light of this time extension, the deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion or

indicate that such a motion is not warranted, is extended to December 17, 2015. All provisions

of the order of service (dkt. 6) remain in effect to the extent they are not modified herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015.

 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02207-WHA Document 18 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2