Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01251/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01251-6/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

 Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 1

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1251 GEB DAD P

vs.

VUONG M. DUC, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

plaintiff has submitted a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. He claims that he erred

in naming Dr. E. Trent as a defendant in his original complaint. He further claims that he should

have named Dr. Erin Forest.

Plaintiff’s motion was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.

1

Plaintiff is advised that, 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.

Case 2:06-cv-01251-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 09/18/07 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

 As the undersigned previously explained, unless otherwise ordered, all motions to 2

dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions concerning discovery, motions pursuant to

Rules 7, 11, 12, 15, 41, 55, 56, 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and motions

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). Failure to

oppose such a motion timely may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. (Order filed

July 7, 2006.)

2

§ 1915. Since plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to

evaluate it. Nor is the remaining defendant in this action, who has submitted a motion for

summary judgment, able to consider whether he will oppose plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, 2

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend will be denied at this time. 

Plaintiff has also inquired whether the undersigned’s discovery order pertains only

to defendant Allen or to defendants Allen, Duc, and Nangalama. On August 30, 2007, the

assigned district judge in this case adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations,

recommending that defendants Duc and Nangalama’s motion to dismiss be granted. 

Accordingly, defendants Duc and Nangalama are no longer parties to this action. Plaintiff should

therefore direct relevant discovery requests to defendant Allen.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 6,

2007 motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.

DATED: September 17, 2007.

DAD:9

hern1251.10b

Case 2:06-cv-01251-GEB-DAD Document 40 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 2