Joseph

(PC) Richard v. Joseph

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 17, 20212:21-cv-00975California319 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CRAIG RICHARD, No. 2: 21-cv-0975 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSEPH, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in support of the motion to amend. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied. In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended…

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.