Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-01275 AWI DLB PC
11-21-2013
TONY LEE HILL, Plaintiff, v. WHITE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO AMEND AS MOOT
(Document 7)
Plaintiff Anthony Shorter ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action August 14, 2013. Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened.
On November 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to add additional Defendants and/or facts.
At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has the right to amend once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend is HEREBY DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff may file his amended complaint without leave of court.
Plaintiff is reminded that amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading," Local Rule 220. In other words, once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, his original complaint will no longer be the operative complaint.
Further, Plaintiff is notified that "[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed with a "mishmash of a complaint," George, 507 F.3d at 607, and he is cautioned that if his amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 18(a), the Court will dismiss the unrelated claims. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE