Claiborne v. Blauser et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/19/2011 ORDERING that pltf's 30 request to name additional dfts, construed as a motion to amend his cmplt, is DENIED as unnecessary. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

No. CIV S-10-2427 LKK EFB P

BLAUSER, et al.,
ORDER
Defendants.

13

/

14

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

15
16

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff requested leave to add defendants to this action.

17

Dckt. No. 30. The court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion to amend his complaint.

18

Plaintiff is hereby informed that he may amend his complaint “once as a matter of

19

course,” within 21 days after serving it, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, or 21 days

20

after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

21

Here, plaintiff’s original complaint has not yet been served, and he is therefore free to amend his

22

complaint once, without leave of court. However, any amended complaint must be complete in

23

itself, without reference to the original complaint. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay,

24

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading

25

is superseded.

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 3, 2011 request to

2

name additional defendants, construed as a motion to amend his complaint, is denied as

3

unnecessary.

4

Dated: October 19, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2