1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASON LEVETTE WASHINGTON, Case No. 25-cv-03057-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 17 10 R. MUELA, Defendant. 11

12 13 After screening Mr. Washington’s complaint pursuant to

, the Court 14 dismissed his complaint and granted him until August 7, 2025 to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 15 No. 11.) Because as of October 3, 2025, Mr. Washington had not filed an amended complaint, the 16 Court entered judgment in favor of R. Muela and against Mr. Washington. (Dkt. No. 14.) 17 Mr. Washington now moves for partial summary adjudication against R. Muela and Ivan 18 Satterfield, (Dkt. No. 15), as well as ex parte emergency injunctive relief and restitution, (Dkt. No. 19 17). The Court denies these motions because, as it has previously explained, “Mr. Washington has 20 not filed an amended complaint upon which to base his motion[s].” (Dkt. No. 13 at 1.) In 21 addition, because the Court has entered judgment against Mr. Washington, it cannot treat his 22 motion for partial summary adjudication as an amended complaint. See Thrune v. Shetler, 892

(Table),

(9th Cir. 1989) (“[Plaintiff] now cannot amend her 24 complaint because the case is closed after final judgment and there are no active pleadings to 25 amend.”). 26 So, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for partial summary adjudication and for ex 27 parte emergency injunctive relief and restitution as moot. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 17, 2025 3 4 ne JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28