IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2009
CARDELL VAN MATHIS, PLAINTIFF,
RICHARD RUSSELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On October 7, 2009, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. On October 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. In this motion, plaintiff states that he wishes to amend the complaint to include claims against defendants Palagumi, Fox, Campbell, Mott and Wilox. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint containing his claims against all defendants. Local Rule 15-220 requires all complaints to be complete without reference to other pleadings. In other words, plaintiff may not amend his complaint by filing piecemeal motions to amend naming new defendants. Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied.
On October 19, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains no claims against defendants Palagumi, Fox, Campbell, Mott or Wilox. Because it is not clear whether plaintiff intended to include no claims against these defendants, plaintiff is granted twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint must include all claims against all defendants. If plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint, the court will screen the October 19, 2009, amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's October 13, 2009, motion to amend (no. 8) is denied;
2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eight days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint; if plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint, the court will screen the first amended complaint filed October 19, 2009.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.