Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00620/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00620-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

19cv620-CAB-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY K. BRANGWYNNE, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv620-CAB-AHG

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT [Doc. No. 

10] AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR

FILING OF SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On October 24, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for more definite statement. 

[Doc. No. 10.] On December 2, 2019, in granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 

oppose Defendants’ motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file either an opposition to the 

motion or a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. No. 14.] On December 20, 

2019, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s More Definite Statement with Declaration in Support 

Thereof [Doc. No. 23], which is filed as a response to the motion but is in the format of a 

complaint. Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff is intending to file an SAC. However, the 

document he has filed [Doc. No. 23] only has one cause of action, while the First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 6] has three causes of action. 

In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final 

opportunity to file an SAC. Plaintiff shall file an SAC by January 31, 2020. Plaintiff is 

Case 3:19-cv-00620-CAB-AHG Document 24 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv620-CAB-AHG

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

cautioned that the SAC must be complete in itself without reference to his original 

pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Second Amended 

Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. 

v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”)

Given that Plaintiff is being granted leave to file an SAC, the motion for more 

definite statement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff does not file an 

SAC by January 31, 2020, the case will be dismissed without prejudice and without 

further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00620-CAB-AHG Document 24 Filed 01/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2