Reid v. City Of Oakland

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAJUANA A. REID, Case No. 25-cv-00383-TSH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ? v. AMEND 10 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 7-8 11 Defendants. 12 5 13 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff LaJuana Reid filed two documents: (1) “Amendment to 14 || Defendants Section,” ECF No. 7; and (2) “Errata to Page 28,” ECF No. 8. As Plaintiff filed these 3 15 documents in ECF as motions to amend, the Court construes them as a motion to file a second a 16 || amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Good cause appearing, the 3 17 || Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff shall file her Second Amended Complaint as a S 18 || separate docket entry. The Court advises plaintiff that “an amended complaint supercedes the 19 || original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 20 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As such, all allegations and claims that Plaintiff seeks to carry 21 forward in this case must be repled in her second amended complaint. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: January 22, 2025 25 LU \ 7 □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28