Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00057/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00057-2/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

RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-00057-LJO-MJS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO SUPLEMENT OPERATIVE 

PLEADING

(ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19)

Plaintiff Raymond Thomas Garcia, Jr., a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

January 15, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on 

February 27, 2014. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has since filed an amended declaration (ECF 

No. 11), a motion seeking to withdraw and replace certain pages of the amended 

complaint (ECF No. 14), a motion to supplement the amended complaint (ECF No. 17), 

and three filings offering various legal arguments (ECF Nos. 13, 18, and 19).

Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself and 

not reference a 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). The 

operative pleading in this case is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed February 

27, 2014. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff may not include additional allegations or otherwise 

Case 1:14-cv-00057-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 08/04/14 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

amend the operative complaint piecemeal through separate filings. Instead, Plaintiff 

must state his allegations in a single chronological narrative in a single filing. 

Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that Illegible or otherwise indecipherable filings will 

be dismissed. Plaintiff must leave spaces between each word and between each line in 

order for the Court to read, understand and analyze his pleading.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 

19) to amend the Second Amended Complaint are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00057-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2