(PC) Martirosyan v. St. Andre

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 20232:23-cv-01382California1,403 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAFAEL MARTIROSYAN, No. 2:23-cv-01382-DAD-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DOE DEFENDANTS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed in state court; on July 12, 2023, defendant R. St. Andre1 removed the action to federal court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on August 11, 2023, which is now before the court for screening. ECF No. 8.3 ////

1 Defendant St. Andre is not named in the FAC’s caption, but is named within the allegations. 24 2 The docket indicates that the filing fee has been paid. ECF No. 1. 25 3 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 27 …

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.