The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
SCREENING ORDER(Doc. 23 Resolved.)
ORDER DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A § 1983 COMPLAINT FORM THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
John Michael Crim ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 42 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 20, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On September 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 28.)
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949.
III. LOCAL RULE 220 - CHANGED PLEADINGS
Local Rule 220 provides, in part:
"Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading."
L. R. 220. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, an amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any previous complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on September 20, 2010, is not complete in itself. On the first page, Plaintiff asserts that he is incorporating all previously filed claims and previously filed exhibits, "as if filed herein." (First Amd. Cmp, Doc. 28 at 1.) Plaintiff's list of the parties begins with paragraph 11 and fails to re-name the defendants from the original Complaint. (Id.)
In his recital of the facts of the case, Plaintiff "incorporates paragraphs 1 through 31, as if stated fully herein," then begins with paragraph 32. (Id. at 2.) The relief sought begins with paragraph 8, and the exhibits begin with Exhibit Y. (Id. at 5-6.) Thus, the First Amended Complaint ...