IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 24, 2013
HAROLD ARMSTRONG, SR., PLAINTIFF,
R. BARNES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
On November 6, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 10, 2012. On January 4, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to supplement his amended complaint. As plaintiff was informed in the court's November 6, 2012 order, Local Rule 220 requires that complaints be complete documents. To avoid confusion and in the interest of expediency, the court does not permit supplemental pleadings. Plaintiff will not be permitted to file a supplemental pleading. However, the court will allow plaintiff to file a complete second amended complaint.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental pleading (Dkt. No. 22) is denied.
2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed.
3. Plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to file a second amended complaint.
4. Plaintiff's failure to file a second amended complaint within 30 days will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.