Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109-1/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

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

LIZBETH COLON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02109 DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Document 15)

Plaintiff Lizbeth Colon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 23, 2013. Pursuant to 

Court order, she filed a First Amended Complaint on May 19, 2014. The First Amended 

Complaint is awaiting screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).1

On October 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to add allegations to her First Amended 

Complaint based on her recent medical diagnosis. Plaintiff states that she was recently told that 

she has three months to live.

Pursuant to Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a 

supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the 

date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Rule 15(d) does not require the 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on March 6, 2014.

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 2
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

moving party to satisfy a transactional test, but there must still be a relationship between the 

claim in the original pleading and the claims sought to be added. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 

474 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, “[w]hile leave to permit supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot 

be used to introduce a separate, distinct and new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of 

Southern Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

For good cause, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to file a supplemental pleading 

related to her recent treatment. However, rather than file a supplement to the First Amended 

Complaint, the Court will require Plaintiff to submit a complete Second Amended Complaint. 

The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to file a complete Second Amended Complaint 

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is reminded that an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

If Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint, the Court will proceed on the 

First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2