UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 27, 2012
VISALIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 14)
Plaintiff Rene Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.(Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim, but allowed Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (First. Am. Compl., ECF No. 12) which has not yet been screened by the Court.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "declaration on [his] statement of complaint" which the Court construes as a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 14.) So construed, the Motion is denied on the following grounds.
Amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not permissible. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Plaintiff's Motion is not a complete amended pleading. A pleading 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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949--50. Plaintiff may not "supplement" as to events occurring prior to the date of the First Amended Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P 15(d).
Here, Plaintiff improperly asks to file an amendment to his underlying pleading or a partial amendment.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to amend the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.