Ramirez

DeEarl Foster v. Aidana Ramirez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 20252:24-cv-02036California429 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DeEARL FOSTER, No. 2:24-CV-2036-DJC-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AIDANA RAMIREZ, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consistent with the District Judge’s October 24, 2025, order, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Pending submission of a second amended complaint, the Court’s September 18, 2025, order directing service of the first amended complaint by the United States Marshall will be vacated. Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be complete in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.