Richard Earl George v. Theresa Cisneros, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California declined to screen the unrelated claims added in Richard Earl George’s first amended complaint because they changed the nature of the action and involved different events and defendants. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement and granted him twenty-one days to file a second amended complaint limited to claims related to those in the original complaint.

Holdings

1. An amended complaint may not change the nature of the action by adding claims and defendants that are unrelated to the claims in the original complaint. Because the first amended complaint concerned different events, defendants, and alleged constitutional violations, the court declined to consider those newly added claims.
2. The filing styled as a motion for a more definite statement would not be considered as an amendment or supplemental pleading because the additional allegations were related to claims the court had already declined to consider in the first amended complaint and were therefore moot.
3. Plaintiff was granted a final opportunity to file an amended complaint, which must be complete in itself and may raise only claims related to those in the original complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint improperly changed the nature of the action by adding unrelated claims and defendants in violation of the court's prior screening order and the federal joinder rules.
2. Whether the filing styled as a motion for a more definite statement could be considered as an amendment or supplemental pleading related to the first amended complaint.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive a final opportunity to amend the complaint.

Disposition

other