Love v. Yates et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 21 Motion For Leave to Amend as Unnecessary, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/1/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CARL R. LOVE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02304-SMS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS
UNNECESSARY

v.
JAMES A YATES, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 21)

Defendants.

14
/
15
16

Plaintiff Carl R. Love (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action

18

on December 10, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend

19

the complaint. (ECF No. 15.) On June 24, 2011, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion for

20

leave to amend as unnecessary. (ECF No. 20.) On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second motion

21

for leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.)

22

As Plaintiff was previously informed, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

23

Procedure a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

24

responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written

25

consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ.

26

P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive pleading has not been served and Plaintiff has not previously

27

amended his complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint without leave of the

28

Court.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, filed June 29, 2011, is DENIED as unnecessary.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
icido3

July 1, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2