Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ABELFATAH ELLAWENDY, Case No. 19-cv-08417-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 9 v. RE-FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 CSUMB POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 Defendants. a 12 On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in response to this Court’s

13 || April 10, 2020 screening order. Dkt. 11; Dkt. 12. Plaintiff's amended complaint merely contains 14 || “amendments” to his first amended complaint and does not re-incorporate the allegations the

15 |} Court deemed proper in the April 10, 2020 screening order. See Dkt. 12. “[T]he amended

5 16 || complaint should be a stand-alone document that includes all relevant factual allegations.” Hilton

3 17. || v. Pagani Worldwide LLC, 19-cv-01848-VC, 2019 WL 4729603, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019). 1g || Thus, for his complaint to be proper, Plaintiff may not rely on allegations made in earlier filings; 19 rather, he must restate all relevant allegations clearly in the second amended complaint. If 0 Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file a proper amended complaint that includes all relevant factual allegations by May 28, 2020. Defendants’ time to respond will run from the 7 date that such a properly amended complaint is filed. 73 SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2020 25 ys yi i ( 26 Te SUSAN VAN KEULEN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 28