Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DANNY HERRERA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-01709-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COURT TO CORRECT 

ERRORS IN THE COMPLAINT AND 

SUMMONS

(Doc. 20.)

ORDER INFORMING PLAINTIFF HE 

IS PERMITTED TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS A MATTER OF 

COURSE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND 

COMPLAINT FORM TO PLAINTIFF

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. BACKGROUND

Leonard Ransom, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made 

an appearance. (Doc. 4.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the 

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case 

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

This action now proceeds on the initial Complaint against defendants Sergeant Ricky 

Brannum and Correctional Officer Danny Herrera for conspiracy, and against defendant 

Lieutenant L. Castro for violation of due process.

1

 On September 19, 2014, the court found the 

 

1 On September 19, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants 

from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 16.)

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 22 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Complaint appropriate for service and sent Plaintiff two issued summonses, a copy of the 

Complaint, and other documents to enable Plaintiff to serve process.2

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct two errors in the Complaint. 

(Doc. 20.) Plaintiff also requested the court to correct and re-issue one of the summonses. (Id.)

II. LOCAL RULE 220 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(a) -

AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Local Rule 220 provides, in part:

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. No 

pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been 

complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits 

referred to in the changed pleading.

Plaintiff requests correction of two errors in the Complaint. First, Plaintiff seeks to 

change the name of defendant “L. Castro” to “J. Castro.” Second, Plaintiff seeks to replace the 

date “4/5/09” in paragraph 24 of the Complaint to “5/5/09.” Plaintiff may not amend the 

Complaint in this manner. To add or correct information in the Complaint, Plaintiff must 

“retype and file” a new First Amended Complaint which is complete in itself and does not refer 

back to the initial Complaint. L. R. 220. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes 

the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended 

complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 

in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party=s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 

Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse 

party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, 

because Plaintiff has not previously amended the complaint and no responsive pleading has 

 

2

Plaintiff paid the filing fee for this action on November 21, 2011. (Court Record.) Therefore, 

Plaintiff is responsible for serving process upon defendants in this action himself.

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 22 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 4
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

been served in this action, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint as a matter of 

course. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to file an amended complaint making the needed 

changes.

III. REQUEST TO CORRECT SUMMONS

Plaintiff also requests the court to re-issue the summons for defendant Castro using the 

name “L. Castro” in place of “J. Castro.” This request is moot, because after Plaintiff files the 

First Amended Complaint correcting defendant Castro’s name, the court will issue new 

summonses reflecting the defendants’ names in the First Amended Complaint.3 Therefore, this 

request shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is 

informed he must demonstrate in his amended complaint how the conditions complained of 

have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff=s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must 

state what each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 unless there is some 

affirmative link or connection between a defendant=s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 36 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has the opportunity to amend, it is not for the 

purpose of adding allegations of events occurring after October 13, 2011. Plaintiff may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). In addition, 

Plaintiff should take care to include only those claims that have been exhausted prior to the 

initiation of this suit on October 13, 2011.

 

3 After the First Amended Complaint is filed, the court shall screen it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A to determine whether it states any cognizable claims. Service shall not go forward until the screening 

process has been completed.

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 22 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Finally, as discussed above, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an 

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general 

rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer 

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The 

First Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst Amended Complaint,@ refer 

to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion requesting the court to make corrections to the Complaint and 

summons is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is informed that he has leave to amend the Complaint once as a matter 

of course;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

First Amended Complaint using the court=s form;

4. The First Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst 

Amended Complaint,@ refer to case number 1:11-cv-01709-GSA-PC, and be an 

original signed under penalty of perjury;

5. The Clerk of the Court shall send one civil rights complaint form to Plaintiff; 

and

6. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 22 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 4