Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01089/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01089-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN PAUL MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NKIRUKA AKABIKE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-CV-01089-HBK (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 23)

 ORDER STAYING ACTION TO PERMIT

 PARTIES TO CONSIDER EARLY ADR

 NOVEMBER 20, 2023 DEADLINE 

On October 3, 2023, pro se and incarcerated Plaintiff filed an unsigned pleading titled 

“Amend Pleadings” attaching various exhibits. (Doc. No. 23). The Court construes Plaintiff’s 

pleading titled “Amend Pleadings” as a purported first amended complaint. 

As an initial matter the purported first amended complaint is unsigned. (Id.). Plaintiff's 

failure to sign the operative complaint violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

which requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least 

one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is 

unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff's failure to sign the pleading also violates Local 

Rule 131 (b), which requires among other things that “[a]ll pleadings ... shall be signed by the 

individual attorney for the party presenting them, or by the party involved if that party is 

appearing in propria persona.” L.R. 131(b). The Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s unsigned first 

Case 1:20-cv-01089-KES-HBK Document 24 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 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

2

amended complaint and is required to strike it. See, e.g., West v. Hulbert, No. 1:16-CV-00046-

DAD, 2016 WL 2854416, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) (“Because the Court cannot consider

unsigned filings, the complaint must be STRICKEN”); Anderson v. Krpan, No. 1:14-CV-01380-

AWI, 2015 WL 402086, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (“The Court cannot consider unsigned 

filings and therefore, the first amended complaint shall be stricken from the record.”). Thus, 

because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Rule 11, it may be stricken on that basis 

alone. 

Additionally, a plaintiff may amend the complaint either twenty-one (21) days after 

serving it, twenty-one (21) days after a defendant filed a responsive pleading, or twenty-one (21) 

days after the defendant files a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). 

Otherwise, a plaintiff may only file an amended complaint if the defendant consents in writing or 

the court grants the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(2). Here,

Defendant filed his Answer to Plaintiff’s operative complaint on April 12, 2023. (Doc. No. 21). 

Although the Discovering and Scheduling Order in this case established an October 13, 2023 

deadline to amend the pleadings (Doc. No. 22 at 3. III.B), the Court made clear that this date 

“does not permit any party to unilaterally file an amended pleading. Any amendments to the 

pleadings must comply with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e., Rule 15) and 

Local Rules (i.e., Local Rule 220).” (Id., fn. 1). Here, it is well past the 21 days since Defendant 

filed his answer. Thus, Plaintiff may not unilaterally file an amended complaint as a matter of 

course but may only file an amended complaint with the Defendant’s consent or leave of court. 

Finally, upon a cursory review of the purported amended complaint, the Court finds it 

deficient. The purported amended complaint is not free-standing and complete on its face. It 

does not allege any specific actions attributable to the only named defendant, Dr. Akabike, in this 

action. Thus, the purported pleading, even if signed, cannot be construed as an amended 

complaint under Federal rule Civil Procedure 15(a). Instead, pleading sets forth various events 

that have occurred after the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim in the operative complaint. 

Nonetheless, even if the Court construed the pleading as a supplemental pleading, Plaintiff does 

not have an unqualified right to file a supplemental pleading. Howard v. City of Coos Bay., 871 

Case 1:20-cv-01089-KES-HBK Document 24 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 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

3

F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, the pleading is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). 

Consequently, for all these reasons, the Court will strike the purported first amended complaint.

The Court notes upon further review of the docket that, as is its custom, it had not early 

referred this matter to an early settlement conference to permit the parties an opportunity to

resolve this case more expeditiously and less expensively. See also Local Rule 270. The Court 

presumes that all post-screening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a 

settlement conference. In appropriate cases, defense counsel from the California Attorney 

General’s Office have agreed to participate in early settlement. No claims, defenses, or 

objections are waived by the parties’ participation. 

Attempting to resolve this matter early through settlement now would save the parties the 

time and expense of engaging in further discovery and preparing substantive dispositive motions. 

The Court therefore will impose a limited STAY of this action to allow the parties to investigate 

Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and engage in settlement discussion or agree to participate in 

an early settlement conference conducted by a magistrate judge. If, however, after further 

investigation of Plaintiff’s claims, meeting, and conferring, either party finds that a settlement 

conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the early settlement 

conference. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s purported first amended complaint 

(Doc. No. 23).

2. This action will remain STAYED until further order to allow the parties an 

opportunity to settle their dispute. No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the 

stay and the parties shall not engage in formal discovery.

4. Within 45 days from the date on this Order, or no later than November 20, 2023, 

the parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to an early settlement conference or if 

they believe that settlement is not currently achievable. If either party objects to a settlement 

conference the Court will LIFT the STAY and extend, as necessary, any remaining 

deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-01089-KES-HBK Document 24 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 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

4

5. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection 

period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge, 

other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 

6. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL 

file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160 

Dated: October 4, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01089-KES-HBK Document 24 Filed 10/04/23 Page 4 of 4