Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Douglas Cheslik, the plaintiff in this Eastern District of California action, moved on February 27, 2026 for leave to file a second amended complaint; the motion is ECF No. 57. On September 18, 2026, the court heard oral argument and directed Cheslik to file a corrected second amended complaint by October 9, 2026 so the court could rule on the motion. The procedural posture then changed: on October 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation for leave to file a third amended complaint, ECF No. 69, and on October 16, 2026 the court granted that stipulation, ECF No. 70, giving Cheslik until October 31, 2026 to file the third amended complaint.
The October 19, 2026 order therefore addressed the earlier second-amended-complaint motion rather than the merits of any claim. The court explained that Ninth Circuit law treats an amended complaint as superseding the original pleading, which is thereafter treated as nonexistent, citing Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015), quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), and noting Ramirez was overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the parties had obtained approval to proceed with a third amended complaint, the pending request for leave to file a second amended complaint appeared moot.
The order is a two-page magistrate-judge order in Case No. 1:23-cv-01754-JLT-FJS, filed October 19, 2026. It does not resolve the underlying allegations, does not grant or deny leave to amend on the merits, and does not itself withdraw the February 27 motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Cheslik's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, ECF No. 57, appeared moot in light of the granted stipulation for a third amended complaint. The reasoning was doctrinal and procedural: once a later amended complaint is authorized, the earlier pleading is superseded and treated as nonexistent, so the request to file the second amended complaint no longer presented a live amendment question for decision.
Rather than denying the motion outright, the court issued an operative directive: Cheslik must consider whether to withdraw the February 27, 2026 motion and has up to and including October 30, 2026 to do so. The order uses the word 'DIRECTS,' making this a command to consider withdrawal, not merely a suggestion and not an order that the motion be withdrawn.
If Cheslik fails to withdraw the motion by that deadline, the court stated it will be forced to issue findings and a recommendation recommending denial as moot; the assigned district judge would then adopt, modify, or decline that recommendation after a fourteen-day objection period. Thus the present order directs consideration of withdrawal and preserves the later recommendation process, but it does not finally deny the motion.
Key Takeaways
- The parties' joint stipulation was granted on October 16, 2026, and Cheslik has until October 31, 2026 to file the third amended complaint.
- The court treated the earlier motion for leave to file a second amended complaint as apparently moot because an amended complaint supersedes the prior pleading, but it did not enter a denial in this order.
- Cheslik was affirmatively directed to consider whether to withdraw the February 27, 2026 motion and has through October 30, 2026 to withdraw it.
- If the motion remains pending after October 30, the magistrate judge stated that findings and a recommendation recommending denial as moot will issue, subject to a fourteen-day objection period and final action by the assigned district judge.
- The order is procedural case management only: it does not decide the merits of Cheslik's claims against the Madera County Sheriff's Department and other defendants.
Why It Matters
The order shows how the court managed overlapping amendment requests without prematurely disposing of the earlier motion. It gave Cheslik a short window to withdraw the now-apparently-moot second-amended-complaint motion after the parties obtained approval for a third amended complaint, while making clear what would happen if he did not act.
The practical deadlines are close but distinct: the withdrawal consideration deadline is October 30, 2026, and the authorized third amended complaint is due October 31, 2026. Any final denial of the earlier motion would not occur in this order; it would require a future findings and recommendation and review by the assigned district judge.