McMaster v. Spearman et al

Filing 22

ORDER Requiring Defendants Carlson, Garcia, and Sedwick to File Answer to Second Amended Complaint within Fifteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/7/13. ( 15) Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DANA McMASTER,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01407-SKO PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
CARLSON, GARCIA, AND SEDWICK TO
FILE ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

v.
M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

(Doc. 20)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff Dana McMaster filed a second amended complaint substituting

16

Correctional Officer S. Espitia for John Doe 2. In a separate order, the Court directed the United

17

States Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendant Espitia.

18
19

Defendants Carlson, Garcia, and Sedwick are HEREBY ORDERED to file an answer to the
second amended complaint within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order.1

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
i0d3h8

January 7, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
The Court previously dismissed Defendant Cate with prejudice and denied Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is identical to his first amended complaint, with the exception
of substituting S. Espitia in place of John Doe 2. The filing of the second amended complaint to name John Doe 2 as
S. Espitia does not have the effect of reinstating Cate as a party.

1