Anaya v. Vugt, et al.
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 9 & 10 Motions For Leave to Amend as Unnecessary, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/28/17. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form) (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 1:16-cv-01094-SKO (PC)
VAN VUGT, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
(Docs. 9, 10)
Plaintiff, Peter Anaya, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions
seeking leave to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff may amend once as a matter of right before service of a responsive pleading by
defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint
and defendants have not filed a responsive pleading, plaintiff may file an amended complaint
without seeking permission from the Court.
Plaintiff is informed that he must file a new pleading as an amended complaint supercedes
the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591,
at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (en banc), and the amended complaint must be Acomplete in
itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,@ Local Rule 220.
Accordingly, Plaintiff=s motions are HEREBY DENIED as unnecessary and the Clerk’s
Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 28, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?