Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02993-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SALISBURY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DET. MICHAEL WARD et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2993 MMC

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On August 4, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). Here, however, answers were filed by two of the defendants long before plaintiff

filed his amended complaint. See Docket Nos. 6 and 9. Under such circumstances,

“a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the

adverse part[ies.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because plaintiff failed to file a stipulation of

the parties, or to seek permission from the Court, prior to filing his amended complaint, the

filing of said complaint was in violation of Rule 15(a). 

Accordingly, the amended complaint is hereby STRICKEN from the record without

prejudice to plaintiff’s obtaining a stipulation from the parties, or seeking an order from the

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 17 Filed 08/07/06 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

27

28

2

Court, permitting such complaint to be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02993-MMC Document 17 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2