McGilbra v. Washoe County

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ZAFFERINE AMIT MCGILBRA, 8 3:22-cv-00245-ART-CSD Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER WASHOE COUNTY, et al., Re: ECF No. 44 11 Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend List of Defendants. (ECF No. 44.) Defendant has responded to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 46.) To date, no reply has been filed by Plaintiff.

A proposed amended complaint did not accompany Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is advised that “. . . The amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to the superseded pleading and must include copies of all exhibits referred to in the proposed amended pleading.”

19 LR 15-1(a).

Plaintiff is further advised that if he chooses to seek leave to file a second amended complaint, he is advised that a second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints and, thus, the second amended complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”). That means that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, should Plaintiff choose to file one, must contain al claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit.

3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend List of Defendants (ECF No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: July 12, 2023.

Cs By UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE