Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02595/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02595-0/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

JERRY CLIFFORD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02595-JST 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

AMEND PETITION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO FILING AN 

AMENDED PETITION; DENYING 

REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Re: ECF No. 5, 6

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed the 

instant pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis have been granted in a separate order. Now pending before the Court are 

Plaintiff’s request that the Court order that the California Attorney General and or the United 

States Attorney General criminally investigate certain officers, some of whom are named 

defendants (ECF No. 5), and Plaintiff’s motion to amend the petition to add evidence and 

additional defendants (ECF No. 6). For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION

1. Request for Criminal Investigation of Defendants

Plaintiff has requested that the Court order either the California Attorney General or the 

United States Attorney General to initiate a criminal investigation against Officers Sisemore, 

Mena, Thompson, Colvin, Fitch, Santiago, Campaigne, Rodriguez, and Hoffman. ECF No. 5. He 

alleges that these officers have conspired to extend his incarceration beyond his lawful release date 

of June 22, 2019. Id.

The Court construes this as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court does not 

Case 3:19-cv-02595-JST Document 8 Filed 07/19/19 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

have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which would require directing parties not before the 

Court to take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 

727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over 

the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 

rights of persons not before the court.”); cf. United States v. Arpaio, 906 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 

2018) (executive, not judicial branch, is endowed with prosecutorial power; court’s authority to 

appoint special prosecutor is extremely limited and is authorized only when necessary to vindicate 

the court’s own authority). The Court therefore cannot order the California Attorney General or 

the United States Attorney General to take action. Furthermore, the request for investigation is 

outside the scope of relief available in this action. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Plaintiff’s request 

for a criminal investigation of these officers is DENIED. ECF No. 5.

2. Motion to Amend the Petition to Add Evidence and Defendants

Plaintiff’s motion to add certain defendants and evidence in a piecemeal fashion is 

DENIED. ECF No. 6. If Plaintiff wishes to add defendants, claims, or evidence, he must file an 

amended complaint that is complete within itself. The Court will not attempt to determine 

Plaintiff’s claims by scouring various pleadings in the action. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, 

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave 

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, Plaintiff has not yet 

amended the complaint. Accordingly, the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to add certain defendants 

and evidence in a piecemeal fashion is without prejudice to filing an amended complaint that is 

complete within itself. 

As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. 

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 

no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The 

Court cautions Plaintiff that his complaint need only satisfy the standard set forth in Rule 8 of the 

Case 3:19-cv-02595-JST Document 8 Filed 07/19/19 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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim(s) 

showing entitlement to relief; and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. At the 

pleading stage, Plaintiff is not required to submit evidence to support his claim, and the Court will 

not act as a depository for prematurely filed evidence. The time to support a claim with evidence 

is in support of, or in opposition to, a dispositive motion; or at trial. 

Plaintiff shall be granted twenty-eight (28) days in which to file an amended complaint. If 

Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint, he must so notify the Court within twentyeight (28) days, which will result in the complaint docketed at ECF No. 1 remaining the operative 

complaint.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a criminal 

investigation of Officers Sisemore, Mena, Thompson, Colvin, Fitch, Santiago, Campaigne, 

Rodriguez, and Hoffman by either the California Attorney General or the United States Attorney 

General. ECF No. 5. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add 

certain defendants and evidence prejudice, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an amended 

complaint. ECF No. 6. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he shall do so within 

twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint 

within twenty-eight days, the complaint docketed at ECF No. 1 will remain the operative 

complaint. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff.

This order terminates ECF Nos. 5 and 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02595-JST Document 8 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 3