govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-02934-4

1 
25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 
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 
Alireza SALEMI, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., 
Defendants. 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 
DISMISS (ECF 20, 21, 22), DENYING 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 
OPPOSITION (ECF 57), AND 
GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 
(ECF 61) 
 
 Unrepresented plaintiff Alireza Salemi alleges that various government entities are 
violating his constitutional rights. Defendants City of Carlsbad, San Diego County District 
Attorney’s Office, and Encinitas Union School District moved to dismiss the complaint. 
But those motions are mooted by plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 
A plaintiff “may amend its pleading once as a matter of course” w ithin “21 days 
after service” of the responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed his first 
amended complaint past that deadline— just over a month after the responsive pleadings 
were filed. (See ECF 20, 21, 22 (motions to dismiss); ECF 44 (first amended complaint).) 
“In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court ’s 
orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Hupp v. San Diego County, No. 12-
cv-0492-GPC-RBB, 2014 WL 1404510, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2014). Yet it is “our 
obligation[], where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, . . . to afford 
the [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(cleaned up)) . In keeping with that sentiment, courts sometimes extend unrepresented 
plaintiffs a one-time exception to court deadlines or rules. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. GEM 
Funding, LLC, No. 5:21-cv-8641-EJD, 2022 WL 18539354, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) 
(granting pro se litigant a “one-time extension” of deadline to allow him to “familiarize 
himself with the deadlines set out in the Civil Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure”); Miletak v. Acuity Mut. Ins. Co. , No. 22 -cv-0633-BLF, 2022 WL 2119123, 
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 64 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 3
 
2 
25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 
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 
at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2022) (“grant[ing]” pro se plaintiff “a one-time” “extension” and 
accepting a late filing). The Court will do so here and accept plaintiff’s late-filed amended 
complaint. But plaintiff Salemi must immediately read and become familiar with the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s own 
Civil Chambers Rules. P laintiff will not be afforded a second exception to this Court’s 
orders or deadlines. 
Because the Court has accepted the first amended complaint, it need not consider the 
original complaint nor any motions related to it. An “amended complaint supersedes the 
original complaint” and becomes the “operative pleading.” CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, 
16 F.4th 1266 , 1274 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) . So, “any previously-filed motions to 
dismiss are moot.” Hearn v. Truesdale, No. 1:24-cv-00326-DCN, 2025 WL 711746, at *1 
(D. Idaho Mar. 5, 2025) ; see also Teed v. Chen , No. 22-cv-02862-CRB, 2023 WL 
2277104, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023) (“Any motion to dismiss attacking an original 
complaint when an amended complaint has been filed is moot.”). 
Finally, plaintiff also requests leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF 61, 
at 1.) This Court must “freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“[L]eave to amend 
‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.”). Leave to 
amend should only be denied whe n it “would prejudice the opposing party, produce an 
undue delay in the litigation, or result in futility for lack of merit.” See Jackson v. Bank of 
Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) . Given the modest changes in the second 
amended complaint and the early stage of the litigation, the Court finds that the defense 
would suffer no unfair prejudice by responding to the latest complaint, nor would accepting 
that updated complaint unduly delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the main change 
reflected in the new est complaint— naming all the alleged defendants— is not a futile 
amendment. The already-filed second amended complaint is accepted. 
 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 
1. The defense motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot. 
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 64 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 3
 
3 
25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 
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 
2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an opposition is DENIED as moot. 
3. The already-filed opposition (ECF 59) is STRICKEN. 
4. Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. The second 
amended complaint (ECF 62) is accepted. By July 1, 2026, the defense must respond to—
or file pre-answer motions to— the second amended complaint. 
5. Plaintiff Salemi must immediately read and become familiar with the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s own Civil 
Chambers Rules. The Local Rules and Chambers Rules are available on the Court’s 
website. 
Dated: June 17, 2026 
 
___________________________ 
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 64 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight