The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND (ECF No. 21) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Darrell Dietle ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17.)
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on April 6, 2012, alleging that the presence of arsenic in his prison's water supply violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint or order service.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's June 11, 2012 motion advising the Court ofhave been additional violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 21.) This motion is interpreted as a motion to amend the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) providing for liberality in granting leave to amend, Plaintiff not previously having amended, an no other party having yet appeared in this action, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
However, the Court will not, and Plaintiff may not, simply add the allegations in the instant motion to Plaintiff's original complaint. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that includes all of the facts that make up his claim.
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. The Court will not refer to or consider any matter in the original complaint. Therefore, in an amended complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled "Amended Complaint," refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within thirty (30) days of service of this order. Failure to comply with this deadline may result in dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...