(PC) Cervantes v. Lee

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAUL CERVANTES, No. 2:20-CV-2416-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER LEE, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 Plaintiff initiated this action with his original complaint filed on December 7, 2020. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed a supplement on January 25, 2021. See ECF No. 11. On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff sought leave to amend. See ECF No. 13. On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed another supplement. See ECF No. 15. On March 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to submit new evidence. See ECF No. 16. On April 8, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend as unnecessary because Plaintiff may amend as of right without leave of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff was instructed that the action would proceed on the original complaint if Plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the Court’s order. See id. On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third supplement to his original complaint. See ECF No. 22.

1 Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend to file a complete amended complaint | with all the information Plaintiff deems necessary for the Court to know, including allegations | relating to conduct occurring after the original complaint was filed, as outlined in Plaintiff's third | supplement. Plaintiff should be informed that an amended complaint supersedes any prior | complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). This means that if | Plaintiff amends a complaint, the Court cannot refer to an earlier pleading in order to make | Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be | complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 9 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the | conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See 11 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how || each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between || each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 | (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

15 If no amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will | only look to Plaintiffs original complaint, ECF No. 1, and to it alone.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 | Dated: October 8, 2021 1 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE