From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pamplin v. Baker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 15, 2017
3:16-CV-00745-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2017)

Opinion

3:16-CV-00745-MMD-VPC

11-15-2017

JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN BAKER et al., Defendants.


ORDER

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion to supplement complaint. (ECF No. 1, 1-1, 1-3, 6).

The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to supplement (ECF No. 6) his complaint. The Court will not piecemeal together documents to form Plaintiff's complaint. Instead, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend to file a fully, complete amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that "[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original"); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint on this Court's approved prisoner civil rights form and it must be entitled "First Amended Complaint."

If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, the Court will only screen the complaint docketed at ECF No. 1-1 and will strike the supplement from the docket.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to supplement (ECF No. 6) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff the approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, a copy of his original complaint (ECF No. 1-1), and a copy of his supplement (ECF No. 6). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must use the approved form and he shall write the words "First Amended" above the words "Civil Rights Complaint" in the caption.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order, the Court will strike the supplement from the docket (ECF No. 6) and will only screen the original complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

DATED: This 15th day of November, 2017.

/s/_________

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Pamplin v. Baker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 15, 2017
3:16-CV-00745-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2017)
Case details for

Pamplin v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN BAKER et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 15, 2017

Citations

3:16-CV-00745-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2017)