Anaya v. Herrington et al

Filing 71

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motions to Amend and Motion for Judicial Notice 54 , 59 , 60 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/29/12. (Hellings, J)

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
HERRINGONT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,
5
6
7
8

1:09-cv-1653 AWI DLB (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO AMEND AND
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE
(Doc. Nos. 54, 59, 60)

9
10
11

On March 27, 2012, the Court adopted a findings and recommendation and dismissed

12

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. See Doc. No. 70. The third amended complaint, however,

13

is erroneously identified as a motion to amend, and is Document No. 54 in the docket sheet.

14

Further, the docket reflect that Doc. No. 54 is an active motion. This is erroneous.

15

Additionally, there is a motion to amend and a motion for judicial notice that were

16

mooted when the Court dismissed the third amended complaint on March 27, 2012. Because

17

they are moot, it is appropriate to deny the motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) and the motion for

18

judicial notice (Doc. No. 59).

19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ordered that:
1.

21
22

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) and motion for judicial notice (Doc. No. 59)
are DENIED as moot; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 54), which in reality is the third amended

23

complaint, is DENIED as moot due to the Court’s dismissal of the third amended

24

complaint with leave to amend (see Doc. No. 70).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:
0m8i78

March 29, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE