Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00763-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFT L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

YATES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 0763 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND 

(Doc. 11) 

 Raft L. Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on June 16, 2006. 

On March 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Submit additional

Statement of claim, Amend, Enlarge, and Expedite Petition.” Plaintiff seeks to include events

that arose in March of this year to his case. 

As a preliminary matter, because the Court maintains all files electronically, it does not

have the capability of adding or attaching pages to other pages or pleadings previously filed.

With regard to amending a Complaint, a plaintiff may amend his complaint once "as a matter of

course," and without leave of Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9 Cir. 1995). 

th

Leave of Court is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should

freely give leave to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the

amendment would be futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States,

928 F.2d 829, 843 (9 Cir. 1991). 

th

Case 1:06-cv-00763-RC Document 13 Filed 03/29/07 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

The California Department of Corrections has an administrative grievance system for prisoner complaints. 1

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3084.1. The process is initiated by submitting a CDC Form 602. Id. at § 3084.2(a). Four

levels of appeal are involved, including the informal level, first formal level, second formal level, and third formal

level, also known as the “Director’s Level.” Id. at § 3084.5. Appeals must be submitted within fifteen working days

of the event being appealed, and the process is initiated by submission of the appeal to the informal level, or in some

circumstances, the first formal level. Id. at §§ 3084.5, 3084.6(c).

2

In this case, the Plaintiff has not yet filed an Amended Complaint and the Defendants

have not yet filed an Answer. Thus, permission at this time is unnecessary. The Court notes,

however, that Plaintiff is seeking to amend new claims that arose after he initiated this action on

June 16, 2006. Plaintiff is advised that such claims are subject to dismissal because they are

unexhausted. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The section 1997e(a) exhaustion requirement

applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), and

requires prisoners to complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of the relief sought

by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the administrative

process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 1

741 (2001). “All ‘available’ remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need not meet

federal standards, nor must they be ‘plain, speedy, and effective.’” Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 (citing

to Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n.5). “Proper exhaustion[, which] demands compliance with an

agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules . . . .” is required, Woodford v. Ngo, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006), and may not be satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise

procedurally defective . . . appeal,” id. at 2382. Finally, exhaustion must occur prior to filing

suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

In this case, because the new claims occurred after Plaintiff filed this action, they are

necessarily unexhausted and are or will be subject to dismissal. Thus, in amending his complaint

Plaintiff should refrain from adding new claims. In addition, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule

Case 1:06-cv-00763-RC Document 13 Filed 03/29/07 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

3

15-220 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 (9 Cir. 1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the th

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

“AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an original signed

under penalty of perjury. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend the Complaint is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00763-RC Document 13 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3