Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6030 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 15 )

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a motion titled as a motion to augment the record re amended

complaint. This action proceeds on the June 21, 2005, first amended complaint. Plaintiff’s

motion consists of a request to supplement the complaint, along with various exhibits.

Plaintiff is advised that he may not use exhibits in order to make the complaint

complete. The complaint should be complete in and of itself, without reference to any other

documents. Plaintiff’s motion to augment the record is therefore denied. 

Should plaintiff desire to allege additional facts, the court will grant plaintiff

leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is reminded that Local Rule 15-220

requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 16 Filed 02/08/06 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

2

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint,

as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be

sufficiently alleged. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to augment the record is denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of thirty days from the date of service

of this order in which to file a second amended complaint. Should plaintiff fail to do so, this

action will proceed on the June 21, 2005, first amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 16 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2