Amschel Rothschild El, Moorish American National, Sui Juris, formerly known as Kondwani Saeed Davis, formerly known as Amschel Mayer James Rothschild, II v. Sound Exchange, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington strikes seven filings submitted by Plaintiff, including two motions and five notices. The Court explains that no operative pleading exists because the original complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the amended pleadings remain subject to screening. The motions are struck as premature, and the notices are struck as superfluous, with leave to refile the motions if appropriate.

Holdings

1. Because the proposed second amended complaint could not become operative without court approval and statutory screening, the court construed it as having superseded the first amended complaint, rendering the pending screening review of the first amended complaint moot.
2. The court would review the proposed second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) only and would forgo a separate Rule 15(a) analysis.
3. The court struck the plaintiff's motions as premature and struck the notices as superfluous; the motions could be refiled if appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed second amended complaint should be treated as superseding the first amended complaint for purposes of the pending statutory screening review.
2. Whether the court should conduct a separate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) analysis of the motion for leave to amend when the proposed second amended complaint must undergo screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3. Whether the plaintiff's motions and notices were premature or procedurally unnecessary while no operative pleading existed.

Disposition

other