Ramos

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT KEITH ERNST, No. 2:21-cv-813 DAD AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 I. Procedural History 19 After filing the original complaint, plaintiff proceeded to file numerous documents that he 20 identified as supplements to the complaint. ECF Nos. 9-12, 16, 19-20. However, because the 21 additional allegations contained in these documents largely addressed events that occurred prior 22 to the filing of the complaint rather than after filing, the supplements were construed as motions 23 to amend the complaint. See ECF No. 21 at 2. Because plaintiff was still within the time for 24 amending the complaint as a matter of course, the motions to amend were denied as unnecessary. 25 Id. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint and advised that the amended 26 complaint “must be set forth in…