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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2227 DFL KJM P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 16, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed

with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

On page 4 of the court’s May 16, 2005 order, plaintiff was instructed as follows:

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a

prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This

is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in this case. Therefore, in

an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and

the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/03/06 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

2

Plaintiff has ignored these instructions of the court. In three instances in plaintiff’s amended

complaint, on pages 4, 5 and 7, plaintiff directs the court back to plaintiff’s original complaint. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be given one final opportunity

to file a complaint that complies with this order and the court’s May 16, 2005 order. Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with this order and the May 16, 2005 order will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

The court notes that on December 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter in which

plaintiff asks that the court call the mail room at his prison and put this case on hold. These

requests will be denied. With respect to plaintiff’s request for a stay, plaintiff has not shown that

a stay is warranted. However, plaintiff is informed that he may dismiss this action without

prejudice to refiling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), prior to service of the

complaint and the filing of a responsive pleading, by simply filing a notice of dismissal with the

court.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed; and

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

second amended complaint that complies with this order, the court’s May 16, 2005 order, the

requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules

of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and

must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of

the second amended complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/03/06 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

3

3. Plaintiff’s December 14, 2005 request that the court telephone his prison and

stay this action is denied.

DATED: May 2, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

epps2227.14(a)(6.6.05)

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 3