Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02868/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02868-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2868 FCD EFB P

vs.

CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See § 1983. On May 24, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend

within 30 days. Since that time plaintiff has filed a number of documents, but has not captioned

any of them as an amended complaint. On June 28, 2007, plaintiff requested an extension of

time to file an amended complaint, which the court granted on July 11, 2007. On July 13, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document styled “request for emergency injunctive relief. On July 30, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document styled “motion/request for injunctive relief.” On August 6, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document styled “motion for permanent injunctive relief.” On August 16, 2007,

plaintiff filed a document styled, “motion for judgment.” On August 20, 2007, plaintiff

requested a second extension of time to file an amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). On

August 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, in which it appears he seeks to

Case 2:06-cv-02868-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/28/07 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

2

appeal the order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. The court addresses each of

these motions in turn.

A threshhold question is whether the pending appeal divests this court of jurisdiction

over plaintiff’s motions. Although it is not clear from plaintiff’s notice of appeal, it appears that

plaintiff appeals from the May 24, 2007, order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, an

order which has not yet resulted in a final judgment. An interlocutory appeal does not

necessarily divest this court of jurisdiction over the remainder of the action. See Mitchell v.

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (order denying qualified immunity is immediately

appealable); Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Plotkin v. Pacific

Tel and Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982) (appeal from an interlocutory order does

not divest trial court of jurisdiction to proceed on other phases of the action). Accordingly, the

court will act on plaintiff’s several filings.

The court has examined the documents filed July 13, July 30 and August 6, 2007, and

finds that they are in fact amended complaints. A complaint contains a statement of the grounds 

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). Each of these documents contains a statement of the basis for the court’s jurisdiction, a list

of allegations against the defendants, and a demand for judgment for relief, including injunctive

relief. Thus, these documents are complaints. The operative complaint is the one filed on

August 6, 2007, and it supersedes all prior complaints. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir. 1967). Accordingly, the court will not rule on these documents as motions. Furthermore,

the court finds that plaintiff has complied with the order to file an amended complaint. 

Therefore, there is no need to grant plaintiff a second extension of time to file an amended

complaint.

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment alleges that he has been denied access to the law library

during lockdowns, which entitles him to “a new trial on the merits as a matter of law.” The

Case 2:06-cv-02868-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/28/07 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

3

reference to a new trial suggests that plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of a judgment under

Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P. However, no defendant has been served and there has been no trial on

the merits, nor has judgment been entered. Thus, this motion is denied.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. The “motion” plaintiff filed on August 6, 2007, is construed as the third amended

complaint, and supersedes all prior complaints. The Clerk of the Court is directed to designate

this document as a “third amended complaint,” and to terminate numbers 17 and 18 on the

docket;

2. Plaintiff’s August 20, 2007, motion for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary;

and,

3. Plaintiff’s August 16, 2007, “motion for judgment” is denied.

DATED: September 28, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02868-FCD-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3