Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00370/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence Wade Miles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

King, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-370-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaint and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 25, 28) Defendant King has filed

a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. 33)

I. Background

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on February 21, 2013 by filing a Civil

Rights Complaint by a Prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1) The assigned District

Judge screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) in an Order filed on June

18, 2013. (Doc. 7) In the Order, Counts One, Two and Three were dismissed along with

Defendants Diaz and Lewis. (Id. at 10) Defendants Nowling and King were directed to

answer Counts Four and Five. (Id.) On August 23, 2013, Defendant King filed an Answer.

(Doc. 24) Defendant Nowling has not been served.

II. Motion for Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may

amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it or (B) . .

Case 2:13-cv-00370-JJT Document 42 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 3
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 -

. 21 days after service of a responsive pleading.” Here, as noted above, Defendant King filed

an Answer on August 23, 2013. (Doc. 24) Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend on

the same day. (Doc. 25) Because Plaintiff was within the time permitted to amend his

Complaint “as a matter of course,” the Motion for Leave to Amend is unnecessary and will

be denied as moot. 

III. First Amended Complaint

On August 29, 2013, six days after filing his Motion for Leave to Amend, and six days

after Defendant King’s Answer, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 28) As

Defendant acknowledges in the Response, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed

within the time for filing an amended pleading “as a matter of course” pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff, however, has failed to comply with Rules of Practice in

civil cases (“Local Rules” or “LRCiv” ) 15.1(b), which requires a notice and a copy of the

proposed amended pleading when an amended pleading is filed as a matter of course. That

rule states:

If a party files an amended pleading as a matter of course or

with the opposing party’s written consent, the amending party

must file a separate notice of filing the amended pleading. The

notice must attach a copy of the amended pleading that indicates

in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by

bracketing or striking through the text that was deleted and

underlining the text that was added. The amended pleading

must not incorporate by reference any part of the preceding

pleading, including exhibits. If an amended pleading is filed

with the opposing party’s written consent, the notice must so

certify.

LRCiv 15.1(b).

Moreover, an amended complaint supersedes its original complaint. Hal Roach

Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990); King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are

not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice in compliance with LRCiv 15.1(b) that

includes a copy of the First Amended Complaint, indicating how it differs from the pleading

which it amends with brackets and strikeouts. Plaintiff further violated LRCiv 15.1(b) by

Case 2:13-cv-00370-JJT Document 42 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

attempting to incorporate part of the original Complaint by reference. In the “Request for

Relief” section of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states, “Note: Damages sought in

the Original Complaint still stand requested.” (Doc. 28 at 6) 

In addition, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint contains only three counts, identified

as Counts Six, Seven and Eight. Counts Four and Five from the original Complaint, the only

two of the five original counts for which the District Judge ordered an answer, are omitted

from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The Court assumes Plaintiff does not intend to

abandon those two claims. It appears Plaintiff intended the allegations in his First Amended

Complaint to be added to the allegations in the original Complaint. Amended complaints

may not incorporate by reference. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1546; King, 814 F.2d

at 567. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be stricken.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, doc.

25, is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, doc. 28, is

STRICKEN. 

DATED this 7th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00370-JJT Document 42 Filed 10/07/13 Page 3 of 3