The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiffs have requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). By order of September 16, 2009, plaintiffs were informed of the requirement to submit separate in forma pauperis applications. Plaintiffs have now complied with that order.
Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the requests to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
In a separate filing, plaintiffs have filed a document entitled, "motion to changed pleadings," requesting permission to amend their complaint.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, an amended or supplemental complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended pleading is filed, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Id.; see also E.D. Local Rule 15-220. Although the allegations of this pro se complaint are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), plaintiff will be required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (dkt. #s 6,7), is granted.
2. Plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint, (dkt. # 5), is granted. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in screening of the original complaint.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...