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)

Download PDF
(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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?