United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2023

Ward v. Pascual

Ward v. Pascual
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided November 20, 2023
Ward v. Pascual

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH WARD, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1423-BAS-AHG CDCR #BN-7790, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 COPY OF COMPLAINT AND vs. EXTENDING TIME TO AMEND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS PASCUAL, SOSA and MASSARO, 16 Defendants.

19 Plaintiff Joseph Ward is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On October 25, 2023, the Court screened the Complaint and found it survived screening with respect to the First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Pascal only and dismissed the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.)

24 Plaintiff was instructed to notify the Court of his choice of going forward with the claims that survived screening or attempting to amend the Complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies of the claims which did not survive screening. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff has now filed a Reply in which he indicates he wishes to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) He has also filed a Motion for a copy of his original Complaint ||to assist him in amending. (ECF No. 6.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for a || copy of his Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) to Plaintiff. The Court also sua sponte EXTENDS the time to amend to forty- || five (45) days after the date this Order 1s filed.

5 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference 6 any previous version of his Complaint. Any Defendants not re-named and any claims ||not re-alleged in the First Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. || CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 9 Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa || County, 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”).

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 / , || DATED: November 20, 2023 Uy Wg (Lyphaa 6 16 United States District Judge 2 □□

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.