Ireland v. Penzone

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Howard George Ireland, No. CV-20-00650-PHX-SRB (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

In its August 5, 2020 Order (Doc. 11), the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a First Amended Complaint as the proposed pleading improperly incorporated by reference the two counts presented in his original Complaint. Plaintiff renewed his request (Doc. 13), which the Court denied as Plaintiff again improperly incorporated by reference portions of his original Complaint into his proposed First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Add and Drop Parties by Amended Pleading Filed Before Responsive Pleading is Served” (Doc. 19). As Defendant Penzone observes (Doc. 21 at 2), Plaintiff has again failed to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1 as the proposed First Amended Complaint omits Count I. To reiterate, “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 1|| litigants.” Id. 2 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs “Motion for Leave to Add and Drop Parties □□ by Amended Pleading Filed Before Responsive Pleading is Served” (Doc. 19).

4 Dated this 17th day of November, 2020. .

6 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 7 United States Magistrate Judge _2-