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

JOHN W. LYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00426-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND; RESOLVING PENDING 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 26

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 18, 23.) Thereafter, he filed papers that appear to be intended to 

supplement the amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) He has since filed a motion to dismiss his 

complaint in order to complete exhausting his claims. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff certainly has the 

right to voluntarily dismiss his case under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

such a dismissal would be without prejudice, meaning that he would be able to file his claims 

again at a later date after his claims are exhausted and he is ready to submit them. Plaintiff asks, 

somewhat contradictorily, to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court 

presumes that Plaintiff means that he does not want to dismiss this action, but rather that he wants 

to further amend his complaint. Two letters received from Plaintiff following his motion to 

dismiss further suggest that he would like to continue prosecuting this case and to amend his 

complaint further. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the 

First Amended Complaint with leave to amend is GRANTED, as follows:

1. Within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a 

Second Amended Complaint that includes the caption and civil case number used in this Order
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

(No. C 17-0426 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the prior 

versions of the complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff 

may not incorporate material from the original complaint or First Amended Complaint by 

reference. He must include in his Second Amended Complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. 

Moreover, Plaintiff may not file his Second Amended Complaint in pieces or supplement it after 

the fact. Rather, Plaintiff must include all the claims, allegations, and defendants he wishes to 

include in this case in his Second Amended Complaint. Lastly, the Second Amended Complaint 

must comply with the joinder rules discussed in the Order dismissing the complaint with leave to 

amend. (ECF No. 18.) If Plaintiff fails to amend within the designated time and in accordance 

with this order, this case will proceed based upon the First Amended Complaint. 

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he 

may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is 

filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 21) is DENIED as unnecessary. 

His motion to stay the proceedings (ECF No. 22) is DENIED as moot because it pre-dates his 

motion to amend the complaint.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 21, 22, and 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN W. LYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00426-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 23, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

John W. Lyle ID: 0264100

San Mateo County Jail

300 Bradford Street

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Dated: October 23, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY