Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01836/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01836-4/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

ERNEST VADEN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1836 GEB KJM P

vs.

OFFICER SUMMERHILL et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a

motion to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a

proposed amended complaint. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings

are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Moreover, an amended or supplemental complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended pleading is filed, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Id.; see also E.D. Local Rule 15-220. 

The court is unable to evaluate the proposed amended complaint and the single page plaintiff has

filed is not a proper pleading with which to supersede his original complaint. 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01836-GEB -KJM Document 22 Filed 12/18/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 3, 2007

motion to amend his complaint is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: December 17, 2007. 

2

vade1836.10

Case 2:06-cv-01836-GEB -KJM Document 22 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2