Harris v. Gipson et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 8 Motion for a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/22/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DARRELL HARRIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:12-cv-01753-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER
(Doc. 8.)

16

Darrell Harris ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

18

action. (Doc. 1.)

19

On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the Clerk of Court to

20

enter into the court's record: "Corrections to Plaintiff's Original Complaint." (Doc. 8.) Together with

21

the motion, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint which was filed by the Clerk on November

22

15, 2012. (Doc. 7.)

23

Plaintiff seeks to have the Clerk make an entry on the court's record indicating that Plaintiff has

24

made corrections to the original Complaint.1 Plaintiff's motion is unnecessary, because an appropriate

25
26

1

27

Plaintiff asserts that he "inadvertantly (sic) failed to sign the exhibits withing (sic) the aforementioned orignial (sic)
complaint," and informs the court that he "has provided a corrected copy of the previously mentioned complaint with this
motion." (Doc. 8 at ¶¶2,3.)

28

1

1

entry on the court's record was already made. On November 15, 2012, when Plaintiff filed the First

2

Amended Complaint which contains Plaintiff's corrections, the Clerk made an entry on the court's docket

3

indicating that the First Amended Complaint was filed. (See Court Record.) No other action is needed.2

4

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court

5

order, filed on November 15, 2012, is DENIED.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

February 22, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27

An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint replaces the original Complaint.

28

2