Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05628-5/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 EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTON FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 33

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. Now before the Court is 

plaintiff’s: (1) motion for preliminary injunction, and (2) motion for 90-day extension of time to 

file his second amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction directing CTF Officer Baldwin to stop stealing 

plaintiff’s mail and legal documents. Officer Baldwin is not a party to this action. Accordingly, 

to the extent plaintiff seeks to force or enjoin action by Officer Baldwin, the motion must be 

denied based on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).

The motion must also be denied based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with notice 

requirements. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a 

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Prior to granting a preliminary injunction, 

notice to the adverse party is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for 

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 34 Filed 08/31/18 Page 1 of 2
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

preliminary injunction cannot be decided until the parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. 

INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Because defendants have not yet been served in this 

action and plaintiff has not provided evidence showing that defendants have received notice of this 

action, the motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

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

complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his SAC by November 19, 2018. Plaintiff 

should name Officer Baldwin in the second amended complaint and include specific allegations 

against Officer Baldwin if he wishes to include Officer Baldwin as a defendant in this action. 

Parties may not file piecemeal complaints or amendments that contain portions of claims and 

defendants. 

Plaintiff is 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 SAC if he files an SAC.

Failure to file an SAC 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.

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 32 and 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/31/18

Case 4:17-cv-05628-HSG Document 34 Filed 08/31/18 Page 2 of 2