Scott v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 15

ORDER that Pla's motions to proceed in forma pauperis at Docs. ## 10 , 11 , and 12 are denied because the Court needs only one motion to proceed in forma pauperis for this case. Pla's 8 motion to proceed in forma pauperis remains pendi ng subject to this Court screening the to-be-filed amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pla's motions to amend the complaint (Docs. ## 13 and 14 ) are granted to the limited extent that Pla shall file one document containing the entire first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 09/30/09. (ESL)

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) State of Arizona; United States of) ) America, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Bobbie Glen Cole Scott,

No.

CV 09-1882-PHX-JAT (Lead) CV 09-1883-PHX-JAT (Cons) CV 09-1884-PHX-JAT (Cons) CV 09-1885-PHX-JAT (Cons)

ORDER

Consistent with this Court's prior order, Plaintiff has re-filed his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Also pending are Plaintiff's two motions to amend the Complaint. The Court will address the motions to amend the Complaint first. Because Plaintiff has not amended his Complaint once as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court will grant leave to amend. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that any amendment completely supersedes his previous Complaint. See Dowdy v. Raman, 2008 WL 1901330, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2008). Plaintiff has not lodged a proposed amended complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of this Order to file a first amended complaint that contains all claims against all defendants that he wishes to raise in these four consolidated actions. In other words, the first amended complaint must cover, in a signal document, all issues for all four consolidated cases.

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

Additionally, Plaintiff is cautioned that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court notes that Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the United States as a Defendant in this case. Doc. #9. Thus, in filing the amended complaint, Plaintiff must state a basis for this Court's jurisdiction over his claims against the State of Arizona, or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis at Docs. ##10, 11, and 12 are denied because the Court needs only one motion to proceed in forma pauperis for this case. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis at Doc. #8 remains pending subject to this Court screening the to-be-filed amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint (Docs. ## 13 and 14) are granted to the limited extent that Plaintiff shall file one document containing the entire first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. DATED this 30th day of September, 2009.

-2-