West v. PF Changs China Bistro

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
ALEXANDER HARRISON WEST,
Plaintiff,
v.
PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO AMEND
Case No. 1:25-cv-0150-DBP
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00150-DBP Document 30 Filed 02/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
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.3
2. The Amended Complaint must clearly state what each named Defendant did to violate
Plaintiff’s rights.4 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.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate 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 Oct. 6, 2020) (unpublished) (citing Miller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 th Cir. 1998)
(amended complaint supersedes original complaint) .
4 Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10 th Cir. 1976) (personal participation of each named defendant
required to state a civil rights claim).
Case 1:25-cv-00150-DBP Document 30 Filed 02/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2