Wright v. The American's Bulletin et al
Filing
222
OPINION & ORDER: Wright's Amended Complaint 202 is Stricken from the docket, Wright shall have thirty (30) days from the date hereof within which to file with the court an amended pleading intended to supercede in its entirety Wright& #039;s complaint as originally filed, or, in the alternative, that he intends to abandon all claims set forth in his complaint as originally filed and to proceed on a single claim for breach of contract, and the Clerk of Court is Directed to return to Wright the undocketed materials identified above. Signed on 8/30/11 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ANTHONY STEVEN WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
CV 1O-6118-PK
v.
OPINION
AND ORDER
THE AMERICAN'S BULLETIN NEWSPAPER
CORPORAnON, and CYNTHIA MARIE
BREWER,
Defendants.
PAP AK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Steven Wright, an incarcerated prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action against defendants The American's Bulletin Newspaper Corporation ("TAB") and Cynthia
Marie Brewer on May 13,2010, alleging the defendants' liability for defamation and breach of
contract. On March 4, 2011, Wright filed two separate motions styled as motions to file
"additional claims" against the defendants, and on March 11,2011, and March 21,2011, Wright
filed two motions styled as motions for 'Joinder of claims." By and through each of these four
motion, Wright sought to file "supplemental' pleadings, not to supercede his previously filed
pleading or pleadings, but rather to aUege claims in addition to those alleged in each previously
Page 1 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
filed pleading, incorporating all previously filed pleadings by reference, such that, had the
motions been granted, Wright's claims in this action would have been stated in not fewer than
five separately filed documents. On May 5, 2010, I recommended, inter alia, that all four of the
motions be denied,' and on June 2, 2011, Judge Mosman adopted my recommendations as his
own opinion, without modification.
By and through my Findings and Recommendations dated May 5, 2010, I described in
detail for the benefit ofthe parties many ofthe procedural rules governing pleadings and the
amendment of pleadings, and expressly advised the parties that:
under Local Rule 15-1 (c) any amended pleading "must reproduce the entire
pleading and may not incorporate any part of the prior pleading by reference."
L.R. 15-1 (c). That is, a party seeking to amend his or her pleading may not
(without leave of court to do so) file "additions" or "supplements" to an existing
pleading, with the result that the patty against whom the pleading was filed must
look to multiple documents in order to determine the nature of the claims alleged.
Instead, any amended pleading must completely supercede all previous pleadings,
so that the party against whom the pleading was filed can determine all of the
claims alleged by referring to only a single document.
Findings and Recommendation (#129), dated MayS, 2011, at 18. I further advised the parties
that in the event either party elected to move once again for leave to amend, that such party
should do so by motion "compliant with the procedural requirements of Federal Civil Procedure
Rule 15 and Local Rule 15-1." Jd at 21.
On July 20,2011, Wright moved for leave to amend his complaint to name and state
claims against Brewer and a new defendant, Dean G. Beeson, only. On August 11,2011, I
granted Wright's motion for leave to amend, and directed the clerk of court to docket Wright's
, On May 5, 2011, I further recommended, inter alia, that default judgment be entered
against TAB for failure to appear.
Page 2 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
proposed amended pleading as Wright's first amended complaint. On August 12, 2011, the clerk
of court docketed Wright's proposed amended pleading as Wright's first amended complaint
(#202). Most recently, Wright has offered for filing an "original copy" of his first amended
complaint, and a USM-285 form by and through which Wright requests that the United States
Marshals serve Beeson with the amended complaint; these materials have not yet been docketed.
On closer inspection of Wright's first amended complaint, I conclude that Wright's
motion for leave to amend dated July 20,2011, may have been improvidently granted. The sole
cause of action alleged in the subject amended pleading is titled as "Amended Count Two for
Breach of Contract," strongly suggesting that, notwithstanding my advice to the parties that "any
amended pleading must completely supercede all previous pleadings, so that the party against
whom the pleading was filed can determine all of the claims alleged by referring to only a single
document," and notwithstanding my direction that the parties comply with "the procedural
requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 15 and Local Rule 15-1" when moving for leave to
amend, Wright's proposed amended pleading is once again intended to supplement rather than
supercede his originally filed complaint.
Wright's amended complaint (#202) is therefore stricken from the docket. Wright shall
have thirty days from the date hereof within which to file with the court an amended pleading
intended
(0
supercede in its entirety Wright's complaint as originally filed and the claims set forth
thercin, identifYing in its caption all parties against whom Wright intends to allege claims in this
action, and setting forth all claims Wright intends to allege in this action, without incorporation
by reference of any other pleading or other document, whether in whole or in part. That
pleading, when filed, shall be docketed as Wright's revised first amended complaint, and shall
Page 3 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
serve as Wright's operative pleading in this action.
Tn the alternative, in the event Wright intends to abandon all claims set forth in his
complaint as originally filed, Wright may instead advise the court that he intends to proceed on
the sole claim alleged in his current proposed amended complaint. In that event, Wright's current
proposed amended complaint shall be restored to the docket.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Wright's amended complaint (#202) is stricken from the
docket, Wright shall have thirty days from the date hereof within which to file with the court an
amended pleading intended to supercede in its entirety Wright's complaint as originally filed, or,
in the alternative, that he intends to abandon all claims set forth in his complaint as originally
filed and to proceed on a single claim for breach of contract, and the clerk of COllli is directed to
return to Wright the undocketed materials identified above.
Dated this 30th day of August, 2011.
r-') \)
\-/ UJi/( '\-~?{Ja)2
Honorable Paul Papak
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4 - AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
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?