Young v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 66

ORDER RESOLVED 59 Motion for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint; RESOLVED 60 Motion for Dismissal of Certain Claims and Service of Process. Plaintiff to choose only one of these two options: (1) Proceed only against defendant Barron for retaliation OR File a third amended complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/12/2010. (Filing Deadline: 8/16/2010) (Marrujo, C)

(PC) Young v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Doc. 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 / 23 24 25 26 27 28 Howard Young ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On June 21, 2010, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either (1) file a third amended complaint, or (2) notify the court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

1:07-cv-01121-GSA-PC ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FILED JULY 1, 2010 (Docs. 59, 60.) ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO CHOOSE ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO OPTIONS: (1) Defendants. OR (2) FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT BARRON FOR RETALIATION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO NOTIFY THE COURT OR FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Barron on the retaliation claim. (Doc. 55.) On July 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to immediately proceed with service of process, and a motion for extension of time to file a third amended complaint. (Docs. 59, 60.) Plaintiff may not select both of these options. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motions filed on July 1, 2010 are RESOLVED; Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to either: (1) Notify the court that he is willing to proceed only against defendant Barron on the retaliation claim; OR (2) File a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in the order issued on June 21, 2010; 3. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

July 12, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2