Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01753/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01753-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL HARRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CONNIE GIPSON, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:12-cv-01753-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER

(Doc. 8.)

Darrell Harris ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

action. (Doc. 1.)

On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the Clerk of Court to

enter into the court's record: "Corrections to Plaintiff's Original Complaint." (Doc. 8.) Together with

the motion, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint which was filed by the Clerk on November

15, 2012. (Doc. 7.) 

Plaintiff seeks to have the Clerk make an entry on the court's record indicating that Plaintiff has

made corrections to the original Complaint. Plaintiff's motion is unnecessary, because an appropriate 1

Plaintiff asserts that he "inadvertantly (sic) failed to sign the exhibits withing (sic) the aforementioned orignial (sic)

1

complaint," and informs the court that he "has provided a corrected copy of the previously mentioned complaint with this

motion." (Doc. 8 at ¶¶2,3.)

1

Case 1:12-cv-01753-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/22/13 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

entry on the court's record was already made. On November 15, 2012, when Plaintiff filed the First

Amended Complaint which contains Plaintiff's corrections, the Clerk made an entryon the court's docket

indicating that the First Amended Complaint was filed. (See Court Record.) No other action is needed.2

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court

order, filed on November 15, 2012, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th

2

Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint replaces the original Complaint.

2

Case 1:12-cv-01753-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 2