Lucus v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JESSE LUCAS, 11 Case No. 19-07938 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. 13 PAUPERIS; GRANTING PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC 14 CRAIG KOENIG, et al., CASE FILING; GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket Nos. 6, 12, 14) 17 18 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), is GRANTED.1 Dkt. No. 19 12. The total filing fee that ultimately will be due is $350.00. In view of Plaintiff’s lack of 20 income, no initial fee is due at this time. The previous IFP motion is DENIED as moot. 21 Dkt. No. 6. 22 Plaintiff has filed a motion for permission for electronic case filing. Dkt. No. 14. 23 Plaintiff states that he has reviewed the requirements for e-filing and agrees to abide by 24 them, and that he has regular access to the technical requirements necessary to e-file 25 successfully. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS the motion. This 26 27 1 After filing this action, Plaintiff was paroled on December 29, 2019. Dkt. No. 13. 1 || case is now designated as an e-filing case. If he has not already done so, Plaintiff should 2 |} consult the Court’s public website, www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on the “ELECTRONIC 3 || CASE FILING” link, and register himself. Plaintiff is advised that after this order is filed, 4 || all documents (orders and motions from opposing parties) will be served on Plaintiff only 5 || electronically and no paper copy will be sent to him. Therefore, Plaintiff should regularly 6 || check his mail for notices regarding any filings in this action. Furthermore, all Plaintiff’s 7 || documents must be e-filed. As an e-filing litigant, Plaintiff may view and download any 8 || order or motion filed by an opponent in the case once without charge. Plaintiff is 9 || responsible for making sure that his electronically filed documents actually get filed. 10 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 15. A plaintiff may amend once as 11 a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Accordingly, this amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and is now the 13 || operative complaint in this matter. An amended complaint supersedes the original, the S 14 || latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 3 15 || 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in the amended complaint a 16 || are no longer claims and defendants not named in the amended complaint are no longer 17 || defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court will 5 18 || conduct an initial review of the amended complaint in a separate order in due course. 19 The Court shall send a copy of this order to Plaintiff. Thereafter, no further paper 20 || copies of future orders shall be sent to Plaintiff in this matter. 71 This order terminates Docket Nos. 6, 12, and 14. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 33 || Dated: _ April 1, 2020 fam Llyn hhaonan) BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 |! Order Granting IFP; Granting E-Filing; Grant Am. Compl. PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\07938Lucas_grant-ifp&efile 26 27