(PC) Richard v. Joseph ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG RICHARD, No. 2: 21-cv-0975 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSEPH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. 19 (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in support of the motion to amend. 21 Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 22 For this reason, plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied. 23 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 24 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 25 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 26 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 27 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 28 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 1 | omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 2 || function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 3 || and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 24) 5 || is denied. 6 | Dated: December 14, 2021 Foci) Aharon 8 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 Rich975.ame 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28