Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01251/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01251-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE DENEGAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. FARRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01251-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No other parties have appeared in 

the action.

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and she was given 

leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 11.) Thereafter, on November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)

As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

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

original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Here, Plaintiff has filed an

amended complaint and her objections to the Court’s order screening her original 

complaint are thereby moot. 

Case 1:15-cv-01251-DAD-JLT Document 15 Filed 05/04/16 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 

The Court will screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01251-DAD-JLT Document 15 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2