Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00585-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGAL SAMUELS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00585-EPG-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

INCLUDING ALL OF HIS CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Dougal Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

Complaint commencing this action on April 5, 2010. (ECF No. 1.)1 On November 2, 2012, 

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On October 1, 2014, the Court 

issued an order finding that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims in the First Amended Complaint 

against defendants Pam Ahlin, Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the 

Governor of California, on Plaintiff’s safe-conditions claim under the Due Process Clause. 

(ECF No. 24.) 

 

1 On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to 

Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and 

all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix 

A(k)(3).

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 06/14/16 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

26

27

28

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to 

identify the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 31.) On October 9, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to file a Second Amended Complaint for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe 

Defendants. (ECF No. 32.) On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 36.) 

The Court reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and found that Plaintiff had 

named the Doe Defendants, but had also omitted three of the defendants that were named in the 

First Amended Complaint and against whom the Court found cognizable claims under the Due 

Process Clause, namely defendants Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, 

and the Governor of California. On May 17, 2016, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to 

clarify whether he intended to remove the three defendants from this case. (ECF No. 37.)

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that he did not intend to remove defendants

Stephen Mayberg, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, and the Governor of California as 

defendants in this case, and he wishes to proceed against those three defendants and also all of 

the defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff requests the Court to 

combine all of his defendants in the complaint.

To proceed against all of his defendants and claims, Plaintiff must file a new complaint 

which includes all of the defendants and claims and is complete in itself.

2

 Plaintiff shall be 

granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint for this purpose, within thirty days, if he so 

wishes. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Fourth Amended 

Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of 

perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

///

 

2 An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 

3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each 

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 06/14/16 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

26

27

28

2. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint including all of the defendants he 

wishes to proceed against in this action, and the claims against them, within 

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “Third Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:10-cv-00585-EPG-PC; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days, the Court 

shall go forward with the Second Amended Complaint as filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00585-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 3