Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373-2/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 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, CDCR #V69078

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART RYAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07-cv-1373 JM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE DISCOVERY

FROM PRIOR PLEADING [DOC.

NO. 32.] 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a civil rights Complaint

[Doc. No. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan

Correctional Facility, has filed a motion to strike the exhibits attached to his original complaint

and preclude them from use by the Defendants in further stages of the litigation. (See Doc. No.

32, Plaintiff’s motion at 1:1-2.)

“Where a pleading is amended or withdrawn, the superceded portion ceases to be a

conclusive judicial admission.” Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., 82 F.3d 327, 33 (9th Cir. 1996)

(quoting Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen v. Dexter & Carpenter, Inc., 32 F.2d 195, 198 (2d Cir.

1929)). Nevertheless, “allegations in prior pleadings are competent, admissible evidence of the

facts stated [and] may be controverted “like any other extra judicial admission made by a party.” 

See e.g. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1065-66 (C.D. Cal.

2001). Accordingly, there is no need to strike Plaintiff’s prior pleading or exhibits attached

thereto. Such material may generally no longer be considered conclusive by virtue of the

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 45 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

operative amended pleading. But see White v. Arco/Polymers, Inc., 720 F.2d 1361, 1396 n.5 (5th

Cir. 1983) (“Admissions made in superceded pleadings are as a general rule considered to lose

their binding force . . [b]ut where, . . . the amendment only adds allegations, deleting nothing

stated in the prior pleadings, admissions made in the prior pleadings continue to have conclusive

effect.”) At the very least, the prior pleading and its attachments that Plaintiff seeks without

cause to “void” may still have evidentiary value that may be advanced or disputed by either

party during the course of the litigation. Id. at 1066. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 45 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 2