(PS) Peterson v. County of Sacramento Sheriff's Department

Opinion

DESIREE PETERSON, Case No. 2:18-cv-00836-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND DENYING COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO HER MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., PAUPERIS AS UNNECESSARY Defendants. ECF Nos. 17 & 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel, filed this civil rights action against various Sacramento County Departments and employees. Plaintiff moves to amend her complaint and to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 17 & 19. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted, but her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as unnecessary since the court previously granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF No. 10. Plaintiff is notified that her amended complaint may only include claims that are related to those contained in her original complaint; unrelated claims against multiple defendants belong in separate suits. She is also reminded that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Accordingly, plaintiff's amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, ECF No. 19, is granted. 2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 17, is denied as unnecessary. ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ January 4, 2024 q———_ JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE