Opinion
1:12-cv-01753-LJO-GSA-PC
02-22-2013
DARRELL HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER
(Doc. 8.)
Darrell Harris ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.)
On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the Clerk of Court to enter into the court's record: "Corrections to Plaintiff's Original Complaint." (Doc. 8.) Together with the motion, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint which was filed by the Clerk on November 15, 2012. (Doc. 7.)
Plaintiff seeks to have the Clerk make an entry on the court's record indicating that Plaintiff has made corrections to the original Complaint. Plaintiff's motion is unnecessary, because an appropriate entry on the court's record was already made. On November 15, 2012, when Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint which contains Plaintiff's corrections, the Clerk made an entry on the court's docket indicating that the First Amended Complaint was filed. (See Court Record.) No other action is needed.Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court order, filed on November 15, 2012, is DENIED.
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.)
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.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE