Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00585-5/pdf.json

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

DOUGAL SAMUELS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00585-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY 

DOE DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 31.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

I. BACKGROUND

Dougal Samuels (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on April 5, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2010, 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. (ECF No. 7.) 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).

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 5
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

This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed on November 2, 2012, 

against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, 

Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr.,1and Doe Defendants 1-10, on Plaintiff’s claim for 

violation of his right to safe conditions under the Due Process Clause. (ECF No. 15.) 

On October 1, 2014, the court issued an order finding service of the First Amended 

Complaint appropriate, and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return 

within thirty days. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff was directed to return the completed service 

documents with five (5) copies of the First Amended Complaint. (Id. ¶3.) On October 27, 

2014, Plaintiff notified the court that he had amended the complaint to remove any mention of 

John Does, Equal Protection, and the American with Disabilities Act, asserting that the court 

had no reason not to allow service of the proposed Second Amended Complaint to go forward. 

(ECF No. 25.) On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff submitted the completed service documents to 

the court with five (5) copies of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26.)

On May 21, 2015, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff leave to amend the 

complaint and requiring Plaintiff to complete and submit documents to the court for service of 

process, including five (5) copies of the November 21, 2015 First Amended Complaint, within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 29.) On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff submitted service documents, together 

with a motion to identify Doe Defendants 1-10. (ECF Nos. 30, 31.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE DOCUMENTS

The court’s May 21, 2015 order directed Plaintiff to submit five (5) copies of the 

November 2, 2012 First Amended Complaint to the court. Instead, Plaintiff submitted one (1) 

copy of the November 2, 2012 First Amended Complaint, and four (4) copies of a new and 

different Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order, and the copies 

submitted by Plaintiff are not appropriate for service. Moreover, Plaintiff now seeks leave to 

identify the Doe Defendants in this case, which will require amendment of the complaint. 

Therefore, service shall not proceed at this time. Should this case proceed to service at a later 

 

1 Current Governor of California. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 5
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

stage of the proceedings, the court shall issue an order directing Plaintiff to submit new service 

documents.2

III. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT – RULE 15

Plaintiff seeks leave to identify the Doe Defendants in this case. To do so, Plaintiff 

must file a Second Amended Complaint naming all of the defendants in this action. Plaintiff is 

not permitted to amend the complaint without leave of court. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal 

Rules 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 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. Id. In this case, because Plaintiff has already amended 

the complaint once, Plaintiff requires leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

ARule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend >shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.=@ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). However, courts Aneed not grant leave to amend where 

the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an 

undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.@ Id. The factor of A>[u]ndue delay by itself . . . is 

insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.=@ Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 

Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712,13 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999)). 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks leave to identify the Doe Defendants in this case, which shall require 

amendment of the complaint. The court finds no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, undue delay 

in the litigation, or futility in allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint for this purpose. 

Therefore, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint for this limited 

purpose.

///

 

2 The service documents submitted by Plaintiff on June 25, 2015, shall not be retained by the 

court.

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 5
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

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days to 

identify Doe Defendants and bring his allegations and claims against them. The amended 

complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did 

that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff=s constitutional or other federal rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter . . . to >state a 

claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). There is no

respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff is advised 

that a short, concise statement of the allegations in chronological order will assist the court in 

identifying his claims. Plaintiff should name each defendant and explain what happened, 

describing personal acts by the individual defendant that resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s 

rights. Plaintiff should also describe any harm he suffered as a result of the violation. 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 

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

in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. 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 amended complaint should be 

clearly and boldly titled ASecond Amended Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate case number, 

and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion to identify the Doe Defendants in this case, filed on June 25,

2015, is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service of this order for limited purpose, as instructed by 

this order;

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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. The Clerk=s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint ASecond Amended Complaint@

and refer to the case number 1:10-cv-00585-LJO-GSA-PC; and

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 5