ORDER

CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for a change of venue (Doc. 9). Defendants' motions to dismiss will be addressed by separate findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff seeks a change of venue to the Central District. According to plaintiff, Los Angeles is a more favorable venue for her claims of discrimination than Sacramento because of local prejudice in favor of government in the state capital. Plaintiff contends that Los Angeles is more diverse culturally, economically, and religiously. This request is without merit, particularly given plaintiff's allegations in the complaint that venue in this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and because the events giving rise to the complaint took place in this district.

A review a the docket reflects that plaintiff filed a document on February 1, 2018, entitled "Amendment to Initial Complaint" (Doc. 6). On February 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Amendment #2" (Doc. 7). Neither document is a complete amended complaint. Rather, both are lists of purported additional defendants. Because neither document is complete in itself without reference to the prior pleading, both will been stricken pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 220, which provides that "No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with."

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for a change of venue (Doc. 9) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's February 1, 2018, and February 8, 2018, filings (Docs. 6 and 7) are stricken for non-compliance with Local Rule 220.