Mills v. City of Palo Alto

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC DAVID MILLS, Case No. 23-cv-03330-JSW Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 9 v. AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT; GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 10 CITY OF PALO ALTO, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 12, 14, 17 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was ordered served upon defendants because the Court found that it stated cognizable claims, when liberally construed. Plaintiff has filed a proposed “amendment” to the complaint. Amendments to complaints are not allowed because the case cannot effectively proceed based upon piecemeal complaints set forth in multiple pleadings. Accordingly, leave to file an amendment to the complaint is DENIED.

If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a whole new amended complaint that includes all of the claims and Defendants he wishes to include in this case, including any claims from the original complaint that he still wishes to purse and that the Court found cognizable. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 23-3330 JSW (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to amend within the designated claims in the original complaint and reinstatement of Defendants’ motion to dismiss (see below); || further leave to amend will not be allowed. A reasonable extension of this deadline will be allowed if Plaintiff shows good cause for it and requests the extension before the deadline passes.

4 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. Because Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, their motion may become moot. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED || without prejudice to refiling or reinstatement if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: September 12, 2023 oo! bles □□□□□ i □ 11 \ Hs .

JEFFR/EY §. WHITE 12 Unite¢/ States istrict Judge lf

= 17 Z 18