(PC) Smith v. Guitron

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH JERMAINE SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-01222-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 v. (ECF No. 13) 14 GUITRON, et al., ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 15 Defendants. RECOMMENDATIONS 16 (ECF No. 12) 17 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Joseph Jermaine Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending are the 21 Court’s April 21, 2026 findings and recommendations to dismiss certain claims and defendants 22 and for this action proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force 23 against Defendants Ali Guitron and Jorge Reyes-Mercado stated in the first amended complaint. 24 (ECF No. 12.) 25 On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF 26 No. 13.) Plaintiff states that he objects because there were other officers involved in the 27 excessive force incident, including Rensen and Stephenson. Plaintiff alleges that these officers 28 were escorting Plaintiff to the cages and they punched him several different times while Plaintiff 1 was handcuffed and being dragged. Plaintiff asserts that he also remembers calling Sgt. Trejo’s 2 name while getting kicked and punched by her officers before she “took place in the incident.” 3 (Id.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a request to file an amended complaint to 4 assert additional factual allegations and/or claims. 5 Having considered the request, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s leave to file an amended 6 complaint. As it appears Plaintiff may be able to include additional factual allegations sufficient 7 to state a cognizable claim(s), the Court finds it appropriate to vacate the pending findings and 8 recommendations issued on April 21, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) After Plaintiff files his second 9 amended complaint, it will be screened in due course. 10 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must 11 state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 13 allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell 14 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 15 Any amended complaint shall be limited to twenty (20) pages in length, excluding 16 exhibits. 17 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 18 claims in his second amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 19 “buckshot” complaints). 20 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 21 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 22 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 23 Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to incorporate by 24 reference. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 26 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, (ECF No. 13), is GRANTED; 27 a. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which 28 to file a second amended complaint, limited to twenty (20) pages in length; 1 b. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; and 2 c. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this 3 order, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey 4 a court order; and 5 2. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2026, (ECF No. 12), are 6 VACATED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: May 5, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28