Smith v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 52 Motion and Request to Amend Complaint; ORDER DENYING Defendants' 60 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint as Moot signed by District Judge Susan R. Bolton on 11/21/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

FRESNO DIVISION

9
10

Michael Lenoir Smith,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13
Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al.
14
15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-1547 SRB
ORDER

16
17
18

There are two motions pending before the Court. On September 7, 2012 Plaintiff filed

19 his Motion and Request to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 52) Accompanying Plaintiff's Motion
20 to Amend was his proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 53) Defendants did not
21 respond in opposition.
22

On October 17, 2012 Defendants Yates, Hedgpeth, Allison and Cate filed a Motion to

23 Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and Request that the Court Screen Plaintiff's
24 Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a response.
25

Because Defendants do not oppose the filing of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint

26 Plaintiff's motion will be granted and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
27 Complaint will be denied as moot. The Court will also enter a Screening Order before
28 requiring Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

1

Without opposition;

2

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion and Request to Amend Complaint. (Doc.

3

52) The Fourth Amended Complaint filed September 7, 2012 is now the operative complaint

4

in this case.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint as moot. (Doc. 60)

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any answer or other responsive pleading need not

8

be made to the Fourth Amended Complaint until after this Court issues its Screening Order.

9
10

DATED this 21st day of November, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-