(PC) Paul E. Duran v. Longoria ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL EDWARD DURAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-0289-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF ADDENDUM 13 v. (Doc. No. 26) 14 LONGORIA, CASE, E. PARKS, M. GAMBOA, W. SINKOVICH, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Paul Duran, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file an 19 addendum to his third amended complaint. (Doc. No. 26). After a plaintiff files a complaint he 20 may not later “add facts, arguments, or evidence to his complaint[.]” Thomas v. Green, 2012 WL 21 4672366, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (citing L.R. 220). The “complaint must be complete 22 within itself.” Id. (citing L.R. 220). Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on March 6, 23 2023, and afterwards, on March 17, 2023, he filed the instant motion. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26). 24 Plaintiff cannot add facts, arguments, or evidence to his third amended complaint after it has been 25 filed. The third amended complaint must stand on itself. Notably, Plaintiff has been advised on 26 two prior occasions that his amended complaints must be free-standing and complete. (Doc. Nos. 27 6 at 7-8, 17 at 6); see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 28 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to file an addendum to his third amended 1 | complaint is procedurally improper. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 Plaintiff's motion to file an addendum (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED. 4 > | Dated: _ March 21, 2023 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28