Fields v. Rosenthal

Filing 19

ORDER For Defendant Rosenthal To File Response To Second Amended Complaint Within Thirty Days (Doc. 17 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/25/2012. (Responses due by 11/30/2012) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN FIELDS,

11

1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT ROSENTHAL TO
FILE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(Doc. 17.)

R. ROSENTHAL,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16

Kevin Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the Kings County

18

Superior Court on August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23, 2010, defendant

19

Rosenthal (“Defendant”) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. 1.)

21

On October 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 5.) The Court

22

screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on May

23

21, 2012, giving Plaintiff two options, (1) to file a Second Amended Complaint, or (2) to notify the

24

Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 9.) On May

25

29, 2012, Plaintiff filed written notice that he was willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable

26

by the Court. (Doc. 11.)

27

On June 20, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for

28

failure to state a claim. (Doc. 12.) On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
1

1

the Court's May 21, 2012 screening order. (Doc. 13.) On July 26, 2012, the Court entered an order

2

denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and giving Plaintiff two options, (1) to file a Second

3

Amended Complaint, or (2) to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found

4

cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 16.) On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

5

Complaint. (Doc. 17.) On August 24, 2012, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss as

6

moot. (Doc. 18.)

7
8
9
10

At this stage of the proceedings, Defendant is required to file a response to Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Rosenthal shall file a response to
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

October 25, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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