(PC) Rodriguez v. Zaldivar-Galvez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 21, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL RODRIGUEZ, No. 1:23-cv-00192 GSA (PC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPEND AND NAME CO-DEFENDANT 14 IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVEZ, (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 16 COMPLAINT DUE JANUARY 19, 2024 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights 19 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s “motion to append and name co-defendant(s).” ECF No. 22 10. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. Plaintiff will however be given the 23 opportunity to file an amended complaint. 24 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 25 In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests the Court permission to add “P. Figuerora” as a 26 defendant in this action. See ECF No. 10 at 5. Plaintiff asserts that Figuerora (sp) has obstructed 27 justice, and that he has conspired to deprive him of access to the courts, among other things. See 28 id. at 2-6. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as the information contained in it cannot simply be 3 added to the original complaint. An amended complaint must be written or typed so that it is 4 complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. See L.R. 220 (E.D. Cal. 5 2009). This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once 6 an amended complaint is filed the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the 7 case. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (“The amended complaint supersedes 8 the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”), overruled on other grounds by 9 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (2012). 10 For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied and the information contained in it will 11 be disregarded. Instead, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint 12 which is complete in itself. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s “motion to append and name co-defendant(s)” (ECF No. 10) is DENIED, 15 and 16 2. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, which is 17 complete in itself, and must be fled no later than January 19, 2024. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: December 20, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

26 27 28