UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 1, 2011
M. CAMPS, DEFENDANT.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BY/ AUGUST 1, 2011
Plaintiff Sylester Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file an amended complaint and on June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an amended complaint.
In its Screening Order filed on May 23, 2011, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and ordered that Plaintiff file his Third Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 16.) Being that the Court previously gave Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and file a Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff is again advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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, prior complaints no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an prior complaints, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to file an amended complaint is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is due on or before August 1, 2011; and
4. Failure to obey this Order may result in dismissal of the entire action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.