Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Anderson
Defendant
Sylester Williams
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. ANDERSON,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01250-LJO-GBC (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docs. 9, 10)

Plaintiff Sylester Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was filed on July

13, 2010, and Plaintiff filed motions for leave to amend on November 17, 2010, and August 5, 2011. 

(Docs. 1, 9, 10). 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive

pleading has not been served and Plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore,

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint without leave of the Court.

In addition, Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional or other federal rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009) . “The

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each

1

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 12 Filed 08/22/11 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

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as true, the

“[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Finally, an amended

complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.

1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend is

GRANTED. (Docs. 9, 10). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 19, 2011 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 12 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 2