Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00093/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00093-3/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

JORGE N. ARRELLANO-LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00093-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT AS UNNECESSARY

(ECF No. 12)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN 

EXTENSION TO AUGUST 9, 2023 TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR 

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COURT’S 

SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges that he was attacked by an inmate in 

retaliation for filing grievances against a correctional officer. At screening, the Court concluded 

that only the following claims should be allowed to proceed: Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Officer J. Gonzales and Plaintiff’s claim for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin. (ECF No. 10). The

Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to (1) file a notice that he wanted to proceed on these claims, or 

(2) file a first amended complaint, or (3) to file a notice stating that he wished to stand on his 

complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge.

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and filed 

a copy of his proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). The proposed amended complaint 

adds Defendants, allegations, and claims. Notably, Plaintiff attaches his original complaint to the 

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 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

2

proposed amended complaint and appears to try to incorporate it by reference in his proposed 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 11, p. 3 – “Plaintiff facts one incorporated in his supplemental 

pages hereto for grounds, and it came to incorporated at the original complaint.”). 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend as unnecessary because the Court already 

granted him permission in its screening order to file a first amended complaint. 

However, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting permission to incorporate his original 

complaint by reference in his proposed amended complaint, permission is denied. Notably, as the 

Court stated in its screening order, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be 

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220.” (ECF 

No. 10, pp. 7-8); Local Rule 220 (“Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the 

Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or 

has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 12) is denied as unnecessary.

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension to August 9, 2023, to file an amended complaint. 

3. Any amended complaint must be complete in itself and cannot reference, seek to 

incorporate, or attach as an exhibit Plaintiff’s original complaint. The proposed 

amended complaint must name all Defendants and list all claims that Plaintiff 

wishes to bring, including those claims that the Court previously determined could 

survive screening in his original complaint.

4. Alternatively, by no later than August 9, 2023, Plaintiff can choose to notify the 

Court in writing that he does not want to file an amended complaint and instead 

wants to proceed only on the following claims from his original complaint:

Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment

against Officer J. Gonzales and Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment against Officer J. Hardin.

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 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

3

5. As the final alternative, by no later than August 9, 2023, Plaintiff may notify the 

Court in writing that he wants to stand on his original complaint.

6. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 13 Filed 07/19/23 Page 3 of 3