Williams v. Anderson

Filing 12

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend 9 , 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/19/11. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

10

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

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

R. ANDERSON,

(Docs. 9, 10)
13

Defendant.
/

14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

(Docs. 1, 9, 10).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220.

8
9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend is
GRANTED. (Docs. 9, 10).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
0jh02o

August 19, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2