Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEIGH GLEAN MEGARGEE, an )

incompetent, by Hazel and Art Lopez, )

his guardian ad litem; and )

KATIE TAYLOR, a minor, by Terry )

Huerta, her guardian ad litem, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

BILL WITTMAN, CHAD RHYMAN, )

and BRANDON HALL, in their )

individual capacity as sheriffs of the )

County of Tulare, AND THE COUNTY )

OF TULARE, and DOES 1 through 100, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0684 AWI LJO

ORDER STRIKING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. #7)

On June 2, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging civil rights violations arising out of

Defendants’ shooting of Plaintiffs. On June 9, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. 

 On July 31, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 1, 2006 and August

4, 2006, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. On September 1,

2006, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to Defendants’ motions. In their oppositions, Plaintiffs note

that Defendants’ motions attack the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs state that the only

difference between the first amended complaint and the second amended complaint is that the

second amended complaint adds Dan Baker as a Defendant in place of one of the Doe

Defendants. Plaintiffs then proceed to defend Defendants’ attack on the first amended

complaint.

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 41 Filed 10/16/06 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

A plaintiff may amend a complaint “once as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Leave of

court or the stipulation of adverse parties is required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P.

15(a). Here, Plaintiffs June 9, 2006 first amended complaint served as Plaintiffs one

opportunity to amend the complaint. The July 31, 2006 second amended complaint was not

filed with leave of court or upon the stipulation of the parties. As such, it is an improper filing.

Accordingly, the second amended complaint filed on July 31, 2006 is STRUCK from the

record in this action. This action will proceed on the first amended complaint until such time as

a properly filed amended complaint is before the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 41 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2