D'Augustino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARLOS A. RAMIREZ, No. 2:20-cv-0624 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ELENA D’AUGUSTINO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 3, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. In response to the court’s order, plaintiff filed second, third and fourth amended complaints. As plaintiff already knows, the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make a subsequent pleading complete. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes all prior pleadings. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Supplemental pleadings are generally not permitted. Good cause appearing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s second, third and fourth amended complaints with leave to file a fifth amended complaint. …