LISA PUPO LENIHAN, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint which has been docketed as a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. (ECF No. 45.) The Motion will be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint only contains amendments of 10 paragraphs in his original complaint. He also identifies two Defendants whose first names were previously unknown at the time he filed his original complaint. This, however, is an improper way to amend a complaint and the Court will not allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint in such a piecemeal fashion. An amended complaint is an all-inclusive complaint that must contain all claims against all defendants. It is a stand-alone document and should not refer back to the original complaint. Once it is filed, it will completely replace the previous complaint, which will no longer be the operative complaint in this matter. Put another way, there must be only one operative complaint that contains all of Plaintiff's allegations against all defendants in this case. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 21st day of May, 2013, that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (ECF No.45) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a new Amended Complaint that complies with this Order but his Proposed Amended Complaint will not be filed as such. The Clerk, however, is directed to change the caption of this matter so as to identify John Doe 1 as Sean Domanick and John Doe 2 as Robert Rosenbaum. Because Plaintiff had previously identified these two individuals by their last ...