Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00763/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Regarding Pending Motions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Crane763amendmisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. CRANE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M.S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0763 JF (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

PENDING MOTIONS 

(Docket Nos. 4, 37, 64, 67, 69, 75)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

written order. On November 2, 2007, the Court ordered service of the complaint on the named

Defendants and directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order. On December 11, 2007, Defendants filed a response and waiver of reply

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and further

motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, a

opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order, and a motion to stay discovery. 

Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motion to dismiss and to the motion to stay discovery. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 25, 2008. 

Case 5:07-cv-00763-JF Document 87 Filed 03/21/08 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

 1A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading and “[n]either the filing nor granting of

such a motion before answer terminates the right to amend . . . .” United States ex rel. Saaf v.

Lehman Brothers, 123 F.3d 1307, 1308 (9th Cir. 1997).

Order Regarding Pending Motions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Crane763amendmisc 2

Defendants filed a motion that the Court screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and Plaintiff

has filed opposition. The Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion (docket no. 75) and review the

amended complaint in a separate written order. Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (docket no. 37) is DENIED as moot. The Court will DENY the additional pending

motions without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants move the Court to screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course at any time

before a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1 Where plaintiff seeks to

amend after a responsive pleading has already been served, however, the decision whether to

grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Waits v. Weller, 653

F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally

in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See

Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. id. (attempt to amend

complaint requiring amendment of scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 must be based upon

good cause). 

An amended complaint filed as a matter of course or after leave of court supersedes the

original complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. 

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern actions filed by

pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987) (original complaint that was not incorporated into pro se litigants’

unsolicited amended complaint was properly ignored).

\\\

Case 5:07-cv-00763-JF Document 87 Filed 03/21/08 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

Order Regarding Pending Motions 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Crane763amendmisc 3

Here, Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the amended complaint,

filed on February 25, 2008, is the operative complaint in this matter. Defendants request that the

Court screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Petitioner opposes the

motion. Because petitioner is a state prisoner seeking redress from state actors under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, Defendants’ motion to screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A

(docket no. 75) is GRANTED. 

Because the Court has yet to review the merits of the claims set forth in the amended

complaint, all pending motions (docket nos. 4, 64, 67, 69) are DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to screen the amended complaint (docket no. 75) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 37) is DENIED as moot. The

additional pending motions (docket nos. 4, 64, 67, 69) are DENIED without prejudice until the

Court has reviewed the merits of the claims in the amended complaint. The Court will screen the

amended complaint and issue a further scheduling order in a separate written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/19/08 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00763-JF Document 87 Filed 03/21/08 Page 3 of 3