Dixon v. Gonzales et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting 19 Motion to Amend the Complaint; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to file Second Amended Complaint signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 06/21/2010. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 v. 9 GONZALES, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 / 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Gemmel Dixon ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in On December 24, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 19) GEMMEL DIXON, Plaintiff, 1:09-cv-00172-OWW-DLB PC ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT forma pauperis in this civil rights action. 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint. (Doc. 19.) A party may amend his pleadings once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supersedes a previous complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The amended complaint must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading." Local Rule 220. Plaintiff is warned that "[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived." King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 1 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 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff's second amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?