Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01257-6/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

 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 1

amended complaint complete. 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).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1257 GEB KJM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to submit a

“supplemental” complaint. Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject 1

to evaluation by this court under the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01257-GEB -CKD Document 19 Filed 12/06/06 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

Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate

it. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 29, 2006

“request to submit a supplemental complaint” is denied.

DATED: December 5, 2006.

1

smit1257.10b

Case 2:05-cv-01257-GEB -CKD Document 19 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2