Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01799-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
James Payne
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING,

Defendant.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01799-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff James Payne, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 31, 2013. (ECF No. 

1.) On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his complaint with 

various exhibits. (ECF No. 10.)

Local Rule 220 requires that each complaint or amended complaint be complete 

in itself and not reference a prior pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

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

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). The operative pleading in this case is 

Plaintiff’s original complaint filed October 31, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff may not 

supplement or amend the operative complaint piecemeal through separate filings. 

Instead, he must state his allegations in a chronological narrative in a single filing.

In passing, the Court notes that the material Plaintiff wants to attach to the 

Case 1:13-cv-01799-MJS Document 11 Filed 08/07/14 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

Complaint consists of approximately 117 pages of exhibits related to expenses at 

Coalinga State Hospital. There is no need to file such documents at this stage of the 

proceedings, and doing so likely would not be productive. Plaintiff’s allegations in the 

Complaint, if plausible, are taken as true at the pleading stage, so there is no need to file 

documents to prove the truth of those allegations. While exhibits are permissible if 

incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal 

system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and should not be submitted where (1) 

they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they are intended as 

future evidence. If this action reaches a point where submission of evidence is 

appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the 

opportunity to do so at that time.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 10) to amend the 

Complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01799-MJS Document 11 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 2