Martin v. Saul

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 SHAJUANDA MARTIN, 7 Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-NJK Plaintiff, 8 ORDER Vv. 9 [Docket No. 17] 10 ANDREW SAUL, Defendant. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend deadlines, which the Court 13] construes as a motion to extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint.!_ Docket No. 17. 14] The Court GRANTS the motion. No later than July 6, 2021, Plaintiff must file an Amended 15] Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, 16] Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (1.e., the original Complaint) in 17|| order to make the Amended Complaint complete. This is because, as a general rule, an Amended 18] Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an Amended Complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an 20] Amended Complaint, the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 21] in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 22] Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: May 19, 2021

Nancy Js.Koppe 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27), ————_____ ' The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's filings, as she is proceeding pro se. See Erickson 28] v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).