Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD R. HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05628-HSG (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING FOURTH 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

DENYING MOTONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 41, 43, 45

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) proceeding pro se, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26, 2018, the Court reviewed his 

complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend on the ground that there were a wide variety of 

claims that appeared to be improperly joined, and the supporting facts were difficult to understand. 

Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint alleging that various CTF officers stole his mail and 

retaliated against him. On July 19, 2018, the Court reviewed the amended complaint and found 

that it stated First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims as against CTF officers 

McGriff, J. Martinez, Serna, Jimenez, and M. Perez for interference with plaintiff’s mail. 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim was dismissed with further to leave to amend. Plaintiff has been 

granted three extensions of time to file his second amended complaint. Now before the Court is 

plaintiff’s fourth motion for an extension of time, requesting an additional 60 days to file his 

second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiff has also filed two motions for a preliminary 

injunction, both of which include allegations that he asserts are “small” amendments to his claims. 

Dkt. Nos. 41, 43.

Plaintiff represents that correctional officers at CTF have continued to steal his mail,

including the blank civil rights complaint forms and other legal mail that this Court has sent him. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s fourth motion for an extension of time to file his second 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/19/18 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint is GRANTED. It is unclear if plaintiff ever received the Court’s most recent 

order extending his deadline to January 18, 2019. In any event, because plaintiff requests sixty 

days, the current deadline will be CONTINUED to February 19, 2019. No further extensions 

will be granted. Failure to file a second amended complaint by the deadline will result in the 

dismissal of all claims except the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against officers 

McGriff, J. Martinez, Serna, Jimenez, and M. Perez.

Plaintiff is reminded that parties may not file piecemeal complaints or amendments that 

contain portions of claims and defendants. In order for the Court to consider plaintiff’s “small” 

amendments to his claims, they must be included in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff is 

further reminded that a second amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and first 

amended complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint 

which are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by reference. 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, plaintiff must repeat his allegations against 

officers McGriff, J. Martinez, Serna, Jimenez, and M. Perez in the second amended complaint if 

he files a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctions are DENIED. As was the case with 

plaintiff’s first motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff seeks to enjoin individuals who are 

not parties to this action, and plaintiff fails to comply with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 65(a)(1). See dkt. nos. 32, 34.

The Clerk shall send plaintiff another blank civil rights complaint form along with his copy 

of this order. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this order to the CTF Litigation 

Coordinator. The Litigation Coordinator is requested to notify the Court, within thirty (30) days 

of this order, whether plaintiff received this order and the attached blank civil rights form and, if 

not, the reasons why not.

Finally, given the seriousness of plaintiff’s allegations that his legal and other mail is being 

confiscated, the Clerk shall email a copy of this order to Monica Anderson, 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/19/18 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

monica.anderson@doj.ca.gov, at the California Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney 

General’s Office may respond to this order, in lieu of the CTF Litigation Coordinator, as 

appropriate.

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 41, 43, and 45.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/19/2018

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 3