Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02820/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02820-1/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

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

JAMES GRZESLO,

CDCR #BB-2085

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF 

CORRECTIONS; P. COVELLO; 

DR. JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT; AND 

(2) GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 13)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13). 

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Supplement to his Motion to Amend (ECF No. 15). 

The Court rules as follows. 

I. Procedural History

On December 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. This Court conducted the required sua sponte screening of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See ECF 

No. 4. Plaintiff was granted forty-five days leave to file an amended complaint in order to

correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. Id. 

///

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 16 Filed 05/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request seeking additional time to comply 

with the Court’s January 25, 2019 Order. ECF No. 10. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 

request and permitted him an additional sixty days leave to file an amended complaint. 

ECF No. 11.

On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend Complaint in which he 

claims that he has been unable to obtain his medical records in order to identify the name 

of the dentist whom he claims violated his Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 13 at 1-2. 

On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff then filed a pleading entitled “Supplemental Amend to 

Plaintiff Original Complaint.” ECF No. 15. In this pleading, Plaintiff appears to identify 

“Dr. Jane Doe” as Dr. Catherine Fransdal, DDS. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also seeks to issue a 

summons as to Dr. Fransdal, but such a request is premature at this stage of the proceedings. 

Currently, there is no operative pleading as Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended 

Complaint as instructed by the Court in the January 25, 2019 Order.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and 

construes this motion as a request for extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request for an issuance of a summons as to Dr. Fransdal is DENIED as 

premature. Plaintiff must identify Dr. Fransdal in his First Amended Complaint and no 

summons will be issued in this matter unless the Court determines that Plaintiff is able to 

file an amended pleading that survives the sua sponte screening process.

Plaintiff is given an additional sixty days leave from the date this Order is signed in 

which to comply with the Court’s January 25, 2019 Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an 

amended pleading within this time frame, the Court will dismiss this entire action for the 

reasons set forth in the January 25, 2019 Order and for failing to comply with a Court 

Order.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to his 

original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended 

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

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 16 Filed 05/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL

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

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.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02820-JLS-LL Document 16 Filed 05/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3