Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02627/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02627-1/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 

MARTIN J. SALCEDO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-2627-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

determined that it stated cognizable claims of excessive force and retaliation against defendants 

Cortez and Rabone. ECF No. 13. The court noted that plaintiff had also improperly listed 

“Shasta County Sheriffs” as a defendant and informed plaintiff that if he could identify specific 

additional individuals against whom he wished to assert claims, he could file a motion to amend, 

along with a proposed amended complaint for the court’s review. Id. at 2 n.1; see also E.D. Cal. 

Local Rule 220 (requiring that motions to amend be accompanied by a proposed amended 

complaint that is rewritten or retyped so that it is complete in itself without reference to any 

earlier filed complaint). 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-02627-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/04/20 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 

Plaintiff now moves to amend his complaint to add eight individual defendants but has not 

submitted a proposed amended complaint for the court’s review. ECF No. 15. Without a 

proposed amended complaint, the court cannot conduct the screening required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A to determine whether plaintiff has stated any additional claims against the defendants he 

wishes to add. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 15) is denied 

without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order and Local Rule 220. 

DATED: May 4, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-02627-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 2