Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUANE FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. VILLAGRANA, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00858-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

(ECF No. 12)

Plaintiff Robert Duane Franklin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed June 3, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s original Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was 

given leave to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on July 

15, 2013. The First Amended Complaint has not been screened.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the First Amended Complaint to add 

inmate appeal documentation. (ECF No. 12.) This motion is denied. Every pleading must 

be complete within itself. It may not be supplemented by referring to a separately filed 

document.

Plaintiff previously asked the Court to supplement his First Amended Complaint with 

material he wanted judicially noticed. (ECF No. 10.) On September 16, 2013, the Court 

denied that request, but gave Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint provided 

he do so prior to October 21, 2013. (ECF No. 11.) If Plaintiff wishes to incorporate 

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 10/01/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

additional information in a second amended complaint, he may do so on or before October 

21, 2013. If he does not file a second amended complaint within that time, the Court will 

screen his First Amended Complaint. 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, any amended pleading must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). 

Accordingly, for the reasons state above, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 12) is DENIED as moot, and 

2. Should Plaintiff fail to file a second amended complaint by October 21, 2013, 

the Court will assume he wishes to proceed on the underlying First Amended 

Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

ci4d6

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 10/01/13 Page 2 of 2