Ahdom v. Lopez et al

Filing 120

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 92 Plaintiff's Administrative Notice and Motion Requesting Clarity signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/23/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

BILAL AHDOM,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-1874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE AND
MOTION REQUESTING CLARITY AS
MOOT
(ECF No. 92)

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 31, 2012, the

17

Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found

18

that it stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, Ashby, S.

19

Lopez, Spaeth, and Schaefer for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (ECF No. 31.)

20

Following service of the first amended complaint, Defendants Chen, Lopez, Schaefer and Spaeth

21

filed an answer to the complaint on July 19, 2012, and the Court opened discovery in this matter

22

on July 23, 2012. (ECF Nos. 37, 39.) Defendants Shittu and Araich also filed an answer to the

23

first amended complaint. (ECF No. 54.)

24

On November 8, 2012, Defendant Ashby filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

25

claim. (ECF No. 53.) On June 26, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Ashby’s motion to

26

dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his claim for deliberate indifference in violation of

27

the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Ashby. (ECF No. 74.)

28
1

1

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, which named

2

Defendant Ashby as the sole defendant. (ECF No. 77.) As Plaintiff only named Defendant

3

Ashby in his second amended complaint, it was unclear whether Plaintiff understood that he

4

could continue to pursue his claims against all defendants following the motion to dismiss or

5

whether he intended to proceed in this action solely against Defendant Ashby. Accordingly, on

6

September 3, 2013, the Court directed Plaintiff to inform the Court if (1) he intended to proceed

7

only against Defendant Ashby; or (2) he intended to proceed against Defendants Araich, Chen,

8

Shittu, S. Lopez, Spaeth and Schaefer, along with Defendant Ashby, for deliberate indifference

9

to his medical needs and he required additional time to file a third amended complaint. (ECF

10
11

No. 78.)
On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff informed the Court that he intended to proceed against

12

Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, S. Lopez, Spaeth and Schaefer, along with Defendant Ashby.

13

Plaintiff therefore requested a forty-five day extension of time to November 1, 2013, to file a

14

third amended complaint. (ECF No. 81.) Following extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his third

15

amended complaint on November 18, 2013. (ECF No. 90.)

16

On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant notice and motion for clarity.

17

According to the motion, Plaintiff served a copy of the third amended complaint on counsel for

18

Defendant Ashby, but he was unclear as to whether or not he was required to send or serve a

19

copy of the third amended complaint on the remaining defendants. Plaintiff therefore asks

20

whether he is required to mail a copy of the third amended complaint to all defendants. (ECF

21

No. 92.) Defendants Araich, Chen, Shittu, S. Lopez, Spaeth and Schaefer (along with Defendant

22

Ashby) all have filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 94, 95, 96.)

23

This indicates their receipt of the third amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for

24

clarity is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 23, 2014

27

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2