Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00469-8/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 

RONALD DEAN YANDELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0469 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On August 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 15. 

The SAC did not name as defendants Donald Washington or Folena (Supervisor Badge #7), who 

had been named in the original complaint. as defendants. Compare ECF No. 1 at 1-6, with ECF 

No. 14 at 4, 6-9. 

 An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, the latter being treated 

thereafter as non-existent. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s failure to maintain claims against 

Washington and Folena in the SAC therefore constitutes a voluntary dismissal of these defendants 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 20 Filed 11/16/21 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE 

Director of USM Services Donald Washington and Folena (Supervisor Badge #7) as defendants 

in this action in the case caption of the docket pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). 

DATED: November 16, 2021 

Case 2:21-cv-00469-DAD-AC Document 20 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 2