IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 28, 2012
ANTHONY RAY EVANS,
JUDGE DENNIS L. BECK, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 17)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 19)
Plaintiff Anthony Ray Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) On July 27, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim, . (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 11.) On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.) On August 21, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint by not later than September 24, 2012. (Order Granting Mot. Amend, ECF NO. 16.) On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for "leave to file supplemental in addition to 1983 complaint". (Mot. to Supplement, ECF No. 17.) On August 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 18.) On August 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Mot. for Ext. of Time, ECF No. 19.)
Now before the Court are Plaintiff's motions to supplement (ECF No. 17) and for extension of time (ECF No. 19.)
Plaintiff motion to supplement is denied. Amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not permissible. Local Rule 220. A plaintiff may not supplement as to events occurring prior to the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Here Plaintiff seeks to file a partial amendment to supplement his later in time Second Amended Complaint and raise therein events pre-dating the Second Amendment Complaint.
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is moot. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint prior to filing his motion for extension of time.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's motion to supplement (ECF No. 17) and motion for extension of time (ECF No. 19) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.