Daniel v. Padilla et al
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/3/2010, ORDERING that pltf's 11/18/09 amended complaint is STRICKEN. (Kastilahn, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. B. PADILLA, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff proceeds in this action on an amended complaint filed June 6, 2008. On October 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to amend, which was denied by the undersigned on November 9, 2009 for failure to file a copy of his amended complaint. On November 18, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint but did not file a motion to amend. Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The procedure for amending a complaint are set forth in Local Rule 137(c). An answer was filed on January 23, 2009. Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to amend nor a stipulation to amend the complaint signed by all parties. Plaintiff's amended complaint will therefore be stricken, and this action will proceed on the amended complaint filed June 6, 2008. ///// ///// 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM (PS)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
/014; vand0682.10c
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's November 18, 2009 amended complaint is stricken. DATED: March 3, 2010.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
