Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00702-8/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

ANTHONY CLARKE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-00702 ALA P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

_________________________________ /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On

September 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint along with a document

entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT.” On September 12, 2007, this court screened

Plaintiff’s March 28, 2007, amended complaint, finding service appropriate for some defendants

and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 1, 2007, Plaintiff

submitted documents necessary to effect service of process on those defendants as well as a

motion for clarification. Plaintiff is confused as to whether his “supplemental complaint” has

been filed. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00702-OWW -WMW Document 35 Filed 10/23/07 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

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the 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. 

Plaintiff’s “supplemental complaint” will be placed in the court’s file and disregarded. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to either notify the court that he wishes to go forward on his

March 27, 2007, amended complaint against defendants Burr, Campbell, Escamilla, Friedman,

Tait and Whitherspoon as per the court’s September 12, 2007, order or file an amended

complaint. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the court will disregard any prior complaints

and screen the amended complaint as if reviewing the matter for the first time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 1, 2007, motion for clarification is granted;

2. Within thirty-five days of the date of this order Plaintiff shall either file an

amended complaint or notify the court that he wishes to go forward on his March 28, 2007,

amended complaint; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall place Plaintiff’s document entitled

“SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT” in the court file and note that it be disregarded.

/////

DATED: October 23, 2007 

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:05-cv-00702-OWW -WMW Document 35 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 2