(PC) Thompson v. Addison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEWAYNE THOMPSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01545-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION TO FILE AN 13 v. ADDENDUM L. ADDISON, et al., (Doc. No. 12) 15 Defendants.

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting leave to exceed the 25-page limit for his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 12 “Motion”). Plaintiff request to file the appendices (Doc. Nos. 3, 4) previously submitted with initial complaint filed on December 1, 2022. (Id.).

21 Plaintiff is proceeding on his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10, “FAC”) filed on March 7, 2023. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a request to file an addendum to his FAC.

23 After a plaintiff files a complaint he may not later “add facts, arguments, or evidence to his complaint[.]” Thomas v. Green, 2012 WL 4672366, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2012) (citing L.R. 220). The “complaint must be complete within itself.” Id. (citing L.R. 220). Because the FAC must be free-standing, the Court denies the Motion.

27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 28 Plaintiff’s construed motion to file an addendum (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED. The Court | will screen Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in due course. >| Dated: _ July 28, 2023 Wihaw. □□□ fareh fackt 4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE