Marquez v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVE MARQUEZ Case No.: 18-CV-00434-CAB-NLS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 45] On August 2, 2019, this Court granted Defendant United States’ motion to dismiss the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendant United States was dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 38.] In August 2, 2019 Order, the Court noted that the only claims that now remain in the case are the Eighth Amendment claims against John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and Jane Doe #1, and gave Plaintiff until September 30, 2019, to identify the Doe defendants and file a motion to amend the complaint to name the identified Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 38 at 9.]

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Extension of Time, requesting additional time to identify the Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 41.] On September 30, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff’s request and gave Plaintiff until November 29, 2019 to file a motion to amend the complaint to name the identified Doe defendants. [Doc. No. 42.]

1 On November 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended ||complaint. [Doc. No. 45.] In the motion, Plaintiff states that he has now identified John || Doe #1 as C. Rodriguez. He requests that the other Doe defendants be dismissed and that ||he be granted leave to file an amended complaint adding C. Rodriguez as a defendant.

5 || Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint adding ||C. Rodriguez as a defendant no later than January 10, 2020. All other Doe defendants are || HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

8 Plaintiff is reminded that his First Amended Complaint must be complete in itself || without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and any claims not re- 10 alleged in the First Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 11 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. || 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 || F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are || not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.’’)

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 ||Dated: December 12, 2019 € BE Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge