(PC) Ramirez v. D'Augustino

Opinion

CARLOS A. RAMIREZ, No. 2:20-cv-0624 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ELENA D’AUGUSTINO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 3, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. In response to the court’s order, plaintiff filed second, third and fourth amended complaints. As plaintiff already knows, the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make a subsequent pleading complete. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes all prior pleadings. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Supplemental pleadings are generally not permitted. Good cause appearing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s second, third and fourth amended complaints with leave to file a fifth amended complaint. With respect to the contents of the fifth amended complaint, plaintiff should refer back to the court’s March 26, 2020 order including the ///// provision concerning pleadings being complete documents. All claims and supporting allegations must be included in the fifth amended complaint. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's second, third and fourth amended complaints are dismissed. 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a fifth amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the court’s March 26, 2020 order the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The fifth amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Fifth Amended Complaint.” Failure to file a fifth amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: December 8, 2020 i dp. A Gx CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE } 4 rami0624.14(2)