Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02312/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02312-0/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

MICHAEL MCKINZIE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2312 FCD KJM P

vs.

JOSEPH TORRUELLA, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2005, the court found service of plaintiff’s complaint

appropriate for defendant Torruella.

Also on December 12, however, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming

additional defendants. On December 30, 2005, he filed a letter, including pages that had not

been included in his original complaint and a motion for the court to consider the amended

complaint filed December 12, 2005.

Although plaintiff may file an amended complaint, he must submit a complete,

new document, because the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s

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

Case 2:05-cv-02312-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 01/11/06 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

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 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. In this case, the court cannot

consider plaintiff’s amended complaint and the additional documents filed December 30, 2005 as

a single complaint; he must submit one complete document for evaluation and screening. The

court will provide plaintiff the opportunity to submit such a complaint. Accordingly, the court 

will not at this time order the United States Marshal to serve the summons and original complaint

on defendant Torruella. If however plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint within the

time allowed, but instead notifies the court that he wishes to proceed on the original complaint as

filed and screened, service of the original complaint will be ordered. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 30, 2005 motion for leave

to file an amended complaint is granted and plaintiff is given thirty days from the date of this

order to file a complete second amended complaint or to notify the court of his intent to proceed

on the original complaint. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that

the action be dismissed. 

DATED: January 10, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

mcki2312.amd

Case 2:05-cv-02312-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2