Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01384-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR REYNARD CYRUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUIRING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01384-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S “SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT” FAILS TO 

ADHERE TO LOCAL RULES AND 

DIRECTING THAT IT BE DISREGARDED

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

ECF Nos. 18 & 21

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against defendants Quiring, Young, 

Bustamante, and Winkler and alleges that they violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating 

against him. ECF No. 8 & 10. Those claims were deemed cognizable. I previously found that 

the Eighth Amendment claims included in plaintiff’s operative complaint were non-cognizable, 

however, because he did not allege that any of defendants’ conduct had resulted in physical 

injury. ECF No. 8 at 3. Plaintiff elected to proceed only with his First Amendment claims and, at 

least temporarily, abandoned his Eighth Amendment claims. ECF No. 13. Then, after service 

was ordered based on the first amended complaint, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, 

ECF No. 18, which can only be described as fragmentary. It does not rearticulate the original 

claims that I previously deemed cognizable and, instead, sets forth only new allegations related to 

Case 2:23-cv-01384-JDP Document 23 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 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

2

an inmate attack that occurred after the screening of his last complaint. Id. at 3. He claims that 

the attack was the result of a “false report” authored by defendant Barajas but does not 

sufficiently allege the report’s contents or how it gave rise to the attack against him. This 

district’s local rules require that any complaint be complete in itself, without reference to previous 

documents. See Local Rule 220. Accordingly, I order that this complaint be disregarded. If 

plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he may file a properly supported motion and include his 

proposed amended complaint. That complaint must contain all of his claims against all 

defendants.

Additionally, defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer to the 

first amended complaint. ECF No. 21. That motion is granted and the answer, ECF No. 22, is 

deemed timely.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 18, shall be disregarded for failure to 

comply with local rules. The Clerk of Court shall strike it.

2. Defendants’ motion for extension of time, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED, and their 

answer, ECF No. 22, is deemed timely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01384-JDP Document 23 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 2