Avila v. Cate et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion for Order Recognizing Cognizability of First and Eighth Amendment Claims or for Leave to File a Partial Amendment signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 2/5/2010. (Figueroa, O)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Perry Robert Avila, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 26, 2009. On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order recognizing the cognizability of his First and Eighth Amendment claim, or for an order granting him leave to file a partial amendment to his complaint clarifying his claims. Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim for violation of the First or for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and therefore, Plaintiff's motion seeking an order recognizing the cognizability of such claims is denied. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Further, amended pleadings must be complete within themselves without reference to another pleading, and therefore, partial amendments are not permissible. Local Rule 220. /// /// /// 1 v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / PERRY ROBERT AVILA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00918-SMS PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER RECOGNIZING COGNIZABILITY OF FIRST AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS OR FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PARTIAL AMENDMENT (Doc. 10)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 February 5, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2