(PC) Hill v. El Dorado County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL ALAN DEAN HILL, No. 2:25-cv-00751 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER EL DORADO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 8.) As plaintiff’s complaint has yet to be screened and no defendants have been served, he is entitled to amend as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is granted.

21 Plaintiff has several other § 1983 actions pending in this district.1 Plaintiff is advised that a complaint “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” is subject to dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)). He is also 1 Plaintiff’s request references one of those § 1983 actions, Hill v. Eslick, et al., 2:25-CV-00748 JDP P. That case involves allegations of excessive force against many of the same defendants named in plaintiff’s complaint here, although in what appears to be a separate incident that occurred five days later. Judge Peterson screened plaintiff’s complaint in Hill v. Eslick and found it stated Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against three of those defendants. Hill v. Eslick, No. 2:25-CV-0748-JDP (P), 2025 WL 1558180, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2025).

1 | informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint || complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint replaces || the prior complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted), overruled | in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

5 Finally, plaintiff is instructed that he may not change the nature of this suit by alleging || new, unrelated claims to newly added defendants. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. || 2007) (‘A buckshot complaint ... should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.”).

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiffs request to amend his complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.

10 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an | amended complaint that complies with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Rules of | Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket | number assigned this case, 2:24-cev-0751 SCR P, and must be labeled “First Amended | Complaint.”

15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint | form used in this district.

17 | DATED: August 4, 2025 kmh 19 SEAN C. RIORDAN 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE