Leavy v. Oseguera et al

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARNELL A. LEAVY, J13312,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. OSEGUERA, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Case No. 25-cv-03585-CRB (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DISMISSING MISCELLANEOUS
MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF Nos. 11, 12, 14, 19 & 20)
Plaintiff Carnell A. Leavy, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on June 24, 2024, while he was at San Quentin
Rehabilitation Center (SQRC), SQRC Correctional Officer John Doe #2 used excessive force
when he hit plaintiff’s right hand with a baton three to four times while SQRC correctional
officers John Doe #1, Tran, Grimes, and Oseguera failed to intervene. Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 8-
12.
On November 11, 2025, the court (Westmore, M.J.) screened the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, “relating to the
use of excessive force against Defendant John Doe #2 as well as the failure to intervene against
Defendants Tran, Grimes, and Oseguera and John Doe #1.” Nov. 11, 2025, Order (ECF No. 7) at
5. The court ordered Defendants Tran, Grimes, and Oseguera served, and warned plaintiff that
failure to identify the Doe defendants would result in their dismissal without prejudice.
On February 4, 2026, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. ECF No. 17.
Currently before the court for decision there are several motions by the parties, including
plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend/correct the complaint to add as a named defendant
Correctional Officer Djonorh, who plaintiff briefly mentions in the body of the complaint but does
not include in the caption of the complaint or its list of defendants. Good cause appearing,
Case 3:25-cv-03585-CRB Document 21 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Northern District of California
plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend/correct the complaint (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The
complaint accordingly is dismissed with leave to amend, as indicated above, within 28 days of this
order. The pleading must be simple and concise (not more than 10 pages) and must include the
caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result
in the dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and
all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint will not be
considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 11), motion to compel discovery (ECF No.
14) and motion for leave to file (ECF No. 19) are DISMISSED without prejudice to renew after
the amended complaint is filed and screened, if needed. And defendants’ motion for an extension
of time to file an answer to the original complaint (ECF No. 20) is DISMISSED as moot.
The clerk is instructed to terminate the motions appearing on ECF as items number 11, 12,
14, 19 and 20, terminate all current filing deadlines, and set a new amended complaint filing
deadline for 28 days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
February 24, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03585-CRB Document 21 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2