ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for punitive damages because of the questions asked by defense counsel during plaintiff's deposition. The first amended complaint is deficient in several respects.

The first amended complaint is not complete in that the claims pled in the original complaint are not incorporated into the amended complaint. Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

The filing of the amended complaint is also in violation of the scheduling order (ECF No. 23) which allows for amendment of the pleadings only with leave of court. The amended complaint is also untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Finally, it appears that the questions about which plaintiff complains are well within the scope of appropriate deposition inquiry and do not give rise to a claim for punitive damages.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 29) is stricken.