Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01554-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO

AMEND AS UNNECESSARY

(Doc. 5)

Plaintiff John E. West (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion

seeking leave to amend. 

Under 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. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive

pleading has not been served and Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore,

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint without leave of the Court. For this reason, Plaintiff’s

motion is unnecessary and shall be denied. 

In the event that Plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff is notified that Local

Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. 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 original

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 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

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, Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend his complaint, filed January 9, 2006,

is HEREBY DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2