Gunn v. Tilton et al

Filing 66

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Granting Defendants' 54 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Filed on November 29, 2010 signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/19/2011. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 8/22/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KEVIN GUNN,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01038-LJO-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING
GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED
ON NOVEMBER 29, 2010.

v.
JAMES TILTON, et al.,
Defendants.

(Docs. 52, 54)
/

14
15
Plaintiff Kevin Gunn (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
16
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed his First
17
Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). The Court subsequently ordered Defendants Correctional Sergeant
18
Coontz and Correctional Officers Medina (Garza), Nunley, Phipps, and Robb to answer Plaintiff’s
19
First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed their Answers on August 14, 2009 (Doc. 22) and
20
August 21, 2009 (Doc. 23). On December 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
21
an amended complaint (Doc. 28) pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 15(a), and lodged his Second
22
Amended Complaint (Doc. 29). After a detailed analysis of Plaintiff’s lodged amended
23
complaint (Doc. 29), the Court concluded that Plaintiff could “amend his complaint to
24
‘clarify important, but correctable defects regarding the conduct of the defendant[s] who
25
were involved in violating his Constitutional rights,’” but did not allow Plaintiff to add
26
Warden Gonzales as a defendant. (Doc. 57).
27
Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, lodged on December 24, 2009, was
28
1

1

the subject of Plaintiff's motion to amend and it was reviewed by the Court in determining

2

whether leave to amend should be granted. Plaintiff's motion was granted in part, but for

3

reasons unclear from the record, the Clerk's Office was not directed to file in that proposed

4

pleading. Instead, Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint within thirty

5

days and when he ultimately did so on November 29, 2010, that pleading differed from the

6

proposed pleading reviewed by the Court. Because the December 24 proposed pleading

7

should have been filed and the order clearly did not contemplate allowing Plaintiff leave to

8

draft and file a different pleading, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's second amended

9

complaint filed on November 29, 2010, be stricken from the record and the proposed second

10

amended complaint lodged on December 24, 2009, be filed.

11

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

12

1.

13

Defendants’ motion be strike be granted to the extent that it is consistent with
the above findings and recommendations (Doc. 54);

14

2.

15

Plaintiff’s additional Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 25, 2010
be stricken from the record (Doc. 52); and

16

3.

17

Defendants be given thirty (30) days to amend or supplement their motion for
summary judgment or to file a notice of intent not to supplement.

18

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

19

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

20

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

21

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

22

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

23

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

24

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:
0jh02o

July 19, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2