Willis v. Lappin et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/1/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES R. WILLIS,

12
13
14
15

1:09-cv-01703-AWI-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION
(Doc. 23.)

vs.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

Plaintiff James R. Willis (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint

19

commencing this action on September 28, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On January 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed the First

20

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8.) On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the

21

complaint, which was granted by the Court on May 21, 2010. (Docs. 12, 15.) On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff

22

filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16.) On June 16, 2011, the Court issued a Screening

23

Order. (Doc. 22.) On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of the Screening Order.

24

(Doc. 23.) On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff’s motion

25

for clarification is now before the Court.

26

The Court’s Screening Order of June 16, 2011 required Plaintiff to either file an amended

27

complaint, or proceed with the claims found cognizable by the Court. Plaintiff requests clarification of

28

the Screening Order with respect to the Court’s findings of cognizable claims and defendants. At this
1

1

stage of the proceedings, in light of the fact that Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 8,

2

2011, the prior Screening Order is no longer of practical significance. The Third Amended Complaint

3

has superceded the Second Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff’s prior complaints no longer serve any

4

function in the case. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). At this juncture, the Third

5

Amended Complaint awaits screening by the Court. Therefore, clarification of the June 16, 2011

6

Screening Order would serve no purpose. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for clarification of the

7

Screening Order is DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 1, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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