From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Prosper

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2535 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-05-2535 GEB GGH P.

February 27, 2006


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not originally file a complaint. Rather, he filed a motion to compel. On January 13, 2006, the court issued an order stating that because plaintiff's allegations were not made on a complaint form, it was unclear who he intended to name as a defendant. The court dismissed the motion to compel with thirty days to file a complaint.

On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a 1½ page "amended" complaint. In this document, plaintiff states that his statement of the case and relief sought are contained in his previously filed motion to compel. Plaintiff states that the only defendant in this action is Warden Prosper.

The court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Plaintiff's January 26, 2006, complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because it improperly refers to the prior motion to compel to state the relief sought as well as to describe plaintiff's allegations and claims. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, it must identify all defendants, contain all factual allegations and state the relief sought.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint filed January 26, 2006, is dismissed with thirty days to file an amended complaint; failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Prosper

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV S-05-2535 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)
Case details for

Taylor v. Prosper

Case Details

Full title:JAMES DEAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CATHY PROSPER, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 27, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-05-2535 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)