Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01222/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01222-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GILBERT I. SERRANO, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CIV S-08-01222 BJR 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

 ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

C.B. ROMO, et al. ) 

 Defendants. ) 

___________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on December 4, 2009. 

Plaintiff filed the motion in response to this court’s November 16, 2009 Order instructing 

Plaintiff to notify the court whether he intends to pursue the above-captioned matter and, if so, to 

file an amended complaint. The November 16, 2009 Order was necessary given the unusual 

history of this case. 

 Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in October 2007 when he filed his complaint in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. In June 2008, Judge Armstrong 

transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and 

the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Serrano.1

 In November 2008, the case was 

 

1 Plaintiff consented to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction. 

Case 2:08-cv-01222-BJR Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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

transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and 

assigned to Chief Judge Lasnik. Thereafter, in February 2009, the case was reassigned to this 

court. During this time of transition, Plaintiff filed numerous pleadings, some of which indicate 

that some of Plaintiff’s claims have been resolved amicably. 

 This court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

which states that “[o]n review, [this] court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief.” Id. The court infers from Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 

that he intends to pursue his § 1983 claims. However, given that Plaintiff has indicated that he 

may no longer want to pursue some of his claims against some of the defendants, it would be 

prudent for Plaintiff to amend his complaint before this court embarks on the 1915A screening 

process. 

 Therefore, the court repeats its instruction that Plaintiff file an amended complaint. He 

must do so within sixty days from the date of this order. In his amended complaint he should 

clearly set forth his claims, the factual allegations giving rise to those claims, and the individuals 

he alleges are responsible for his damages. The court cautions Plaintiff that the amended 

complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. The court will 

assume that Plaintiff is pursuing only those defendants named in the amended complaint. All 

others will be dismissed. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).2

 

2 In the Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff expressed concern that he will not be able to locate 

some of the defendants. Presumably, Plaintiff is concerned about locating the defendants so that 

he can serve them with the amended complaint. Plaintiff need not be concerned about serving the 

defendants. If this court determines that the amended complaint states a cognizable claim(s), the 

Case 2:08-cv-01222-BJR Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

United States District Court Judge 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be considered as a 

motion for clarification and is resolved accordingly. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the date of 

this order within which to file an amended complaint. This action will be dismissed if Plaintiff 

fails to file an amended complaint within the specified time. 

 DATED this 4th day of January, 2010. 

 /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 

 

court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the named defendants pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

Case 2:08-cv-01222-BJR Document 24 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 3