IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 10, 2010
JAMA A. HALL, PLAINTIFF,
PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
ORDER DEPARTMENT; OFFICER ZENDER, BADGE NO.177,
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to attach to the complaint an amended cause of action for an intentional tort. Dckt. No. 19. Then, on November 16, 2010, the undersigned issued an order construing plaintiff's November 8 motion as a motion to amend plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and granted that motion. Dckt. No. 20. Plaintiff was given fourteen days, or until November 30, 2010, to file an amended complaint that included all of plaintiff's proposed allegations. Id.
On December 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a response to the November 16 order. Dckt. No. 21.
Plaintiff states that he was unable to meet the November 30 deadline due to unexpected, excusable personal reasons. Therefore, plaintiff will be given additional time to file a complete amended complaint.
Although plaintiff asks the court to accept the amended complaint that was filed on November 8, 2010 and also attaches an additional copy of the intentional tort cause of action, Dckt. No. 21 at 2, 4, plaintiff is instructed to file an amended complaint that includes all of plaintiff's proposed allegations in this action.*fn1 Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, "a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint," London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date this order is filed to file an amended complaint, as provided herein and in the November 16 order;*fn2
2. Defendants shall have fourteen days from the date any amended complaint is served upon them to respond to that amended complaint;
3. The January 12, 2011 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is continued to February 16, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24; and
4. On or before February 2, 2011, the parties shall file a joint status report addressing the matters referenced in the court's May 13, 2010 order.