West v. PF Changs China Bistro

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH ALEXANDER HARRISON WEST, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, PREJUDICE MOTION TO AMEND v. Case No. 1:25-cv-0150-DBP PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO, Defendant. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Pro se Plaintiff Alexander Harrison West moves the court to amend the Complaint.1 The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed amendment and finds it is materially different than the original complaint and appears to be made in error. Plaintiff originally sued PF Changs China Bistro bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.2 In the Motion to Amend, Plaintiff notes he is bringing suit against PF Changs, however, the civil cover sheet names an entirely different Defendant, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and does not list PF Changs despite that being the focus of Plaintiff’s stated grievance. Thus, it appears Plaintiff’s filing is an error. The court therefore orders as follows: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is to file a new motion to amend along with an amended complaint if desired within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff should consider these general points before filing an Amended Complaint: 1 ECF No. 28. 2 Complaint ECF No. 1. 1. The Amended Complaint must stand entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by reference, any portion of the original complaint. Any claims which are not realleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed abandoned.? 2. The Amended Complaint must clearly state what each named Defendant did to violate Plaintiff's rights.‘ Plaintiff should identify each constitutional violation and include, as must as possible, specific dates when the alleged constitutional violations occurred. 3. Each cause of action, together with the facts and citations that support the cause of action, should be stated separately. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16 February 2026. Dusii-B7 Pyad ° United Stafes Mapistrate Judge 3 See Pierce v. Williams, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185074 at *6 (E.D. Okla. Oct. 6, 2020) (unpublished) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991) (“An amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect”)); Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10% Cir. 1998) (amended complaint supersedes original complaint). 4 Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10" Cir. 1976) (personal participation of each named defendant required to state a civil rights claim).