govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00574-1

1 
25-cv-574-BJC-VET 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MONA S. MURILLO, 
CDCR # P43503, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
JONATHAN P. COTA, et al., 
Defendants. 

ORDER DISMISSING THE FIRST 
AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 
64) AND DENYING THE 
FOLLOWING MOTIONS AS MOOT: 
 
(1) MOTION TO APPOINT 
COUNSEL (ECF No. 38); 
 
(2) MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 
41); 
 
(3) MOTION REQUESTING 
APPERANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ 
COUNSEL (ECF No. 48); 
 
(4) MOTION REQUESTING 
CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S 
ORDER (ECF No. 60); 
 
(5) MOTION TO IDENTIFY JOHN 
DOES 1 TO 18 (ECF No. 61); 
 
 
 
[ECF No. 64, 38, 41, 48, 60, 61] 
Case 3:25-cv-00574-BJC-VET Document 65 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 4
 
2 
25-cv-574-BJC-VET 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
Before the Court is Mona Murillo’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 
ECF No. 64. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the FAC. The Court 
also DENIES the following motions as moot: Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 38), 
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 41), Motion Requesting Appearance 
of Defendants’ Counsel (ECF No. 48), Motion Requesting Clarification of Court’s Order 
(ECF No. 60), Motion to Identify John Does 1 to 18 (ECF No. 61). 
DISUCSSION 
 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant 
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1 -2. On July 1, 2025, the Court screened the 
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). ECF No. 9. The Court 
dismissed all claims against all Defendants for failure to state a claim, with the exception 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) claims 
against Defendants CDCR, Moeckly, Lewis, Bracamonte, Contrell, Cowart and Does 1 -
10, the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Lewis, Arroyo, Cota, 
Carrillo, Amaya, Alexander and Williamson, and the Eighth Amendment denial of medical 
care claims against Defendants Does 1-10. Id. at 9–24. Plaintiff was given the option of 
amending her complaint or proceeding only with those claims against the aforementioned 
Defendants. Id. at 26. On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that she wishes to 
proceed only with the claims that survived screening and has identified several of the Doe 
Defendants by name. ECF No. 10. 
On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Amend the Remaining John Does.” 
ECF No. 17. On April 20, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and instructed 
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than May 22, 2026. On April 29, 2026, 
Plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Courts Clarification of Court Order,” in which 
Plaintiff states 
The Plaintiff does not seek, nor motion to Amended the Complaint Itself. But 
Case 3:25-cv-00574-BJC-VET Document 65 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 4
 
3 
25-cv-574-BJC-VET 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
to Amend John Does out and Amended Complaint to reflect John Does By 
name and U.S. Marshal order to served the now identified John Does. The 
Plaintiff will not filed a Amended Complaint as no amendment is required 
and plaintiff continues to proceed with claims and defendants as per the 
screening order. (sic) 
ECF No. 60 at 2. 
Despite indicating previously to the contrary, on June 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed an 
amended complaint. ECF No. 64. Under Civil Rule 15.1(a), “[e]very pleading to which 
an amendment is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order, must 
be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. ” S.D. Cal. CivLR 
15.1(a). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not comply with the local rule. Plaintiff 
has repeatedly indicated that she does not seek to amend the substance of her claims and 
instead seeks only to substitute identified individuals for previously unnam ed Doe 
defendants. See ECF No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 64 at 5–6. However, the procedural mechanism 
for adding newly identified defendants is the filing of an amended complaint. See Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Merritt v. Co. of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 766 (9th Cir. 1989) . Once 
filed, an amended complaint supersedes the prior pleading and therefore must be complete 
in itself without reference to any earlier complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 
1967) (“The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter 
as nonexistent.”). 
 Plaintiff’s FAC does not include the ADA/RA claim or her retaliation claim. See 
ECF No. 64 at 3-4. Instead, the FAC swaps out John Does 1-9 with names and titles and 
requests that the Court order the U.S. Marshall to serve the newly named Defendants. See 
id. at 5-6. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did not intend to abandon the claims that 
survived screening. Because Plaintiff’s FAC is not complete in itself, it does not comply 
with Civil Rule 15.1(a) and cannot serve as the operative pleading in this action. See Hal 
Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc. , 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) . 
Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the FAC. 
Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that complies with Civil 
Case 3:25-cv-00574-BJC-VET Document 65 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 4
4 
25-cv-574-BJC-VET
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Rule 15.1(a), which must include all claims, allegations, and defendants upon which she 
intends to proceed. Plaintiff may not rely on or incorporate prior pleadings by referen ce. 
The SAC must be complete in itself and must include all claims and defendants Plain tiff 
seeks to pursu e in this action, including any defendants previously identified as Doe 
defendants. 
ORDERS 
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 
may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than July 28, 202 6. Defendant may 
file a responsive pleading no later than August 11, 2026. Because there is no 
operative complaint upon wh ich the following motion s can be b ased, the Court 
DENIES th e following motions without prejudice: 
(1
) Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 38);
(2) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 41);
(3) Motion Requesting Appearance of Defendants’ Counsel (ECF No. 48);
(4) Motion Requesting Clarification of Court’s Order (ECF No. 60);
(5) Motion to Identify John Does 1 to 18 (ECF No. 61).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2026 
Case 3:25-cv-00574-BJC-VET Document 65 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight