VanDyke v. Sisto et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush on 8/9/2010 ORDERING that Pltf's 36 Amended Complaint is STRICKEN and this action will proceed on the existing pleadings. (Zignago, K.)

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 ORDER - 1 Defendants. On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Ct. Rec. 36. Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Because an answer was filed February 11, 2010, Plaintiff may not amend the complaint without obtaining leave of court. Plaintiff's amended complaint is therefore STRICKEN and this action will proceed on the existing pleadings. In addition, the court notes the following: Upon cursory review it does not appear as though the proposed amended complaint differs substantively from the original complaint. It does appear to attach one additional exhibit, which if necessary during the litigation, may be proffered to the court as evidence at the appropriate time. Plaintiff should also understand that any further proposed amendment would also be subject to further screening. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff and counsel. DATED this 9th day of August 2010. s/ Justin L. Quackenbush JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v. D.K. SISTO, et al., BRADLEY VAN DYKE, Plaintiff, NO. CV-08-3120-JLQ ORDER RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA