Anderson v. Sheeks

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 14, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00143
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYLER CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00143-MMD-WGC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 C.O. SHEEKS, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 9 On March 8, 2021, the Court issued an order screening Plaintiff’s complaint 10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 3.) The screening order allowed some of 11 Plaintiff’s claims to proceed and dismissed other claims without prejudice and with leave 12 to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Id. at 8-9.) The order noted that if 13 Plaintiff chose not to file an amended complaint, this action would proceed immediately 14 on the colorable claims in the initial complaint. (Id. at 9.) 15 Plaintiff has now filed a motion for an extension, stating that he has had difficulty 16 getting a financial certificate due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff 17 requests an extension of 90 days to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 (Id. at 2.) It appears that Plaintiff has misunderstood the Court’s order and believes that 19 he must file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff does not need to file 20 a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an 21 amended complaint, if so wishes. However, in light of Plaintiff’s misunderstanding, the 22 Court will give Plaintiff an extension of thirty days from the date of this order to file an 23 amended complaint, if he so chooses. 24 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended 25 complaint supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint 26 must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 27 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the 28 original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also 1 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims 2 dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent 3 amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 4 contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in 5 this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff should file the amended complaint on this Court’s 6 approved prisoner civil rights form, and it must be entitled “First Amended Complaint.” 7 If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint this case will proceed 8 immediately on Plaintiff’s colorable claims, as discussed in the Court’s previous screening 9 order. (ECF No. 3.) 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (ECF No. 5) is granted in part. If Plaintiff 12 chooses to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies of his complaint, as outlined 13 in the Court’s previous screening order, Plaintiff will file the amended complaint within 30 14 days from the date of entry of this order. 15 2. It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint 16 curing the stated deficiencies of the complaint, this action will proceed immediately on 17 Plaintiff’s colorable claims, as discussed in the Court’s previous screening order.

18 DATED THIS _1_4t_h day of April 2021. 19

20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

24 25 26 27 28