Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arya
Defendant
Lamont Crossley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT CROSSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ARYA,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-3045 DJC CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on October 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a pleading 

titled “First Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is 

docketed as a motion to amend. (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint is disregarded.

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint against defendant Dr. Arya as to 

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law medical malpractice claims based on defendant 

Arya’s alleged failure to provide adequate medical care for plaintiff’s broken wrist. (ECF Nos. 1, 

5.) Plaintiff’s original complaint also raises Eighth Amendment and state law medical 

malpractice claims against a doe defendant for allegedly providing inadequate medical care for 

plaintiff’s broken wrist. (ECF No. 1.) In the amended complaint, plaintiff states that he seeks to 

amend his complaint to identify the doe defendant as Nurse Jennie Pascua. (ECF No. 27.) 

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 29 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not, however, include plaintiff’s claims against defendants 

Arya and Pascua. (Id.) 

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

reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 

F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 

treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). 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.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed October 10, 2024 does not comply with Local Rule 

220 because it fails to include plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law medical malpractice 

claims against defendants Arya and Pascua. Accordingly, plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

disregarded. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file a proposed amended complaint identifying 

defendants Arya and Pascua as the defendants and including plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and 

state medical malpractice claims against defendants Arya and Pascua. Plaintiff shall also file a 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the proposed amended complaint. In the 

motion to amend, plaintiff shall address how and when he discovered the identity of defendant 

Pascua as the doe defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 27), docketed as a motion to amend, is 

disregarded; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a proposed amended 

complaint and motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and 

3. Defendant Arya may file a response to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended 

complaint within twenty-one days thereafter.

///

///

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 29 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: October 25, 2024

Cross3045.ord

2

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 29 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 3