Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING 68 Motion to Amend and DENYING 66 Motion for Screening and 67 Motion for Clarification; Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint Due June 15, 2011 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/21/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

CASE NO.

1:08-cv-1065-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
AND DENYING MOTION FOR SCREENING
AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

D. ADAMS, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 66, 67 & 68)

14

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AMENDED
/ COMPLAINT DUE JUNE 15, 2011

15
16
17

Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

18
19

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court

20

are a number of miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court will address each in

21

turn below.

22

I.

23

MOTION FOR SCREENING
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Screening asking the Court to screen his complaint

24
25

or transfer his case to a district with a smaller caseload. (ECF No. 66.) Because the Court

26

recently screened Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint, (see ECF No. 65), Plaintiff’s

27

Motion for Screening is moot and is DENIED.

1

II.

2
3

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Clarification that poses a number of questions he

wants answered. (ECF No. 67.) The questions seek direction on legal issues (such as:

4
5

What is required to exhaust administrative remedies?) None of the issues raised by

6

Plaintiff are currently before the Court. The Court cannot offer advisory opinions on them.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is DENIED.

8

III.

9
10

MOTION TO REPLY TO COURT ORDER
The Court’s Screening Order found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim

against Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, and Kim for violating the Eighth

11
12

Amendment but failed to state a claim on his other grounds. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff was

13

given the option of proceeding on the claims found cognizable or filing a fifth amended

14

complaint. (Id. at 18.)

15

In response, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to reply to court order” asking the Court to allow

16

him to file a fifth amended complaint only as to the five Defendants against whom he has

17

already stated a claim. (ECF No. 68.) He wishes to refile these claims so that his

18
19

operative complaint will have “no deficiencies or problems later on in litigation.” (Id. at 2.)

20

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint if he does

21

so on or before June 15, 2011. If the Court has not received Plaintiff’s fifth amended

22

complaint by June 15, 2011, it will proceed and order the fourth amended complaint served

23

on the five defendants against whom it states a claim.

24

///

25
26
27

///

1

IV.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS the following:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Screening is DENIED as moot;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is DENIED;

6

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reply to Court Order is GRANTED; and

7

4.

Plaintiff shall file a fifth amended complaint no later than June 15, 2011. If

4
5

8

Plaintiff misses this deadline, the Court will proceed on the fourth amended

9

complaint.

10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated:
97k110

April 21, 2011

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE