The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF CASE (ECF No. 11)
ORDER REGARDING CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION (ECF No. 12)
ORDER REGARDING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 13)
Plaintiff Hassan Abpikar ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on October 27, 2011. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's motion for status of the case, filed May 18, 2012; 2) Plaintiff's motion to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, filed July 27, 2012; and 3) Plaintiff's motion for leave of the Court to amend or supplement his complaint, filed July 27, 2012.
With regards to the status of this case, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As stated previously in the First Informational Order, the Court will direct service once it has screened the complaint and determines that it contains cognizable claims for relief against named Defendants. First Informational Order ¶ 12, filed Oct. 28, 2011, ECF No. 2.
II. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction
Plaintiff moves for consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction before the undersigned. For clarity of the docket, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff a consent/decline form regarding magistrate judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the form within thirty (30) days.
III. Leave to Amend or Supplement Complaint
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend or supplement his complaint. Leave of the court to amend should be freely given as justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff is notified of the following requirements for amending or supplementing pleadings. Plaintiff will be granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his first amended complaint. Failure to comply with this order will result in the Court screening Plaintiff's original complaint.
Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although accepted as true, the "[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading," Local Rule 220. Plaintiff is warned that "[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived." King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ...