Jones v. Wright

Opinion

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** TYRRELL L. JONES, 8 Case No. 2:20-cv-01878-APG-VCF Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 ORDER CAROLYN WRIGHT, et al., 11 Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 5)

Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Tyrrell L. Jones’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5). The 13 14 plaintiff filed a “one page amended complaint” that refers to the original complaint. (Id.) The Court 15 dismisses plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice because his complaint is not complete in 16 itself. 17 The Court granted plaintiff’s informa pauperis application and dismissed his complaint without 18 prejudice with leave to amend, finding that this Court may lack diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 19 claims because although he noted that he had a Florida address, he alleged he was a citizen of the State 20 of Nevada in his complaint. (See ECF Nos. 1-1 at 3 and 3 at 3). Plaintiff has now filed a one page 21 “amended complaint” that states only that he is a citizen of the State of Florida and that this Court has 22 diversity jurisdiction over this case. (ECF No. 5). 23 “[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint supersedes the 24 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 25 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967)). An amended complaint must be “complete in itself, including exhibits, without reference to the superseded pleading.” LR 15-1(a). The 1 amended complaint has replaced the original complaint in this case and plaintiff’s amended complaint 2 does not state any claims. Plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to reference his original complaint and 3 4 is not complete in itself. The Court dismisses plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice. This will 5 give plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint that is complete. 6 ACCORDINGLY, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Jones’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 8 PREJUDICE. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jones has until Monday, March 1, 2021 to file a second 10 amended complaint addressing the issues discussed above. Failure to timely file an amended complaint 11 that addresses the deficiencies noted in this Order may result in a recommendation for dismissal with 12 prejudice. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if an amended complaint is later filed, the Clerk of the Court is 14 directed NOT to issue summons on the amended complaint. The Court will issue a screening order on 15 the amended complaint and address the issuance of summons at that time, if applicable. See 28 U.S.C. § 16 17 1915(e)(2). 18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 21 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 22 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 24 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 25 2 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the

5 District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch.

3 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 4 || written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 5 |] service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 6 || counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED this 28th day of January 2021. 9 □□□ □□□ a. 10 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25