(PC)Yandell

(PC)Yandell v. Washington

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 16, 20212:21-cv-00469California311 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 2:21-cv-0469 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER DONALD WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 15. The SAC did not name as defendants Donald Washington or Folena (Supervisor Badge #7), who had been named in the original complaint. as defendants. Compare ECF No. 1 at 1-6, with ECF No. 14 at 4, 6-9. An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s failure to maintain claims…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.