Opinion
No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P.
August 28, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2006, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. On August 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. This document contains allegations against defendants not previously named. In this document plaintiff also states that he is incorporating by reference the claims made against defendants in the original complaint.
As stated in the July 26, 2006, order, 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). In other words, plaintiff may not "incorporate by reference" the claims made in his original complaint. His amended complaint must contain all claims against all defendants. Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint that contains all claims against all defendants.
On June 6, 2006, this action was removed to this court from the Sacramento County Superior Court. Since that time plaintiff has filed four motions for temporary restraining orders. These motions for injunctive relief are vacated, and plaintiff is ordered to file one motion for injunctive relief containing all of his requests.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's August 18, 2006, motion for leave to amend is denied; plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint;
2. Plaintiff's four motions for injunctive relief filed July 14, 2006, August 15, 2006 (two motions), and August 21, 2006, are vacated; plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a motion for injunctive relief containing all of his claims.