Menefield v. Yates et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/3/2011 granting 19 Motion to Amend the Complaint; denying 20 Motion for expedited screening as moot. (Amended Complaint due by 9/6/2011). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,

CASE NO.

1:10-cv-2406-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXPEDITED SCREENING AS MOOT
(ECF Nos. 19 and 20)
/ THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

Plaintiff James Fredrick Menefield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

19

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

20

initiated this action in state court, but it was removed to this Court by Defendants. Plaintiff

21

filed a First Amended Complaint on January 11, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 4.) The

22

Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

23

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 3, 2011, Motion to Amend his First Amended

24
Complaint (Mot., ECF No. 19.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited
25
26

Screening of his First Amended Complaint, filed on July 15, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 20.)

27
-1-

1

I.

2
3

MOTION TO AMEND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to amend his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No.

19.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has not been screened, and no responsive

4
5

pleadings have been filed. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court is to “freely give

6

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Because the Court had not acted on Plaintiff’s

7

First Amended Complaint, there is no compelling reason to disallow Plaintiff’s request to

8

further amend.

9
10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file a
Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. The Court will

11
12
13

consider Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint in this case
and will undertake to screen it in due course.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.

14
15

II.

16

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCREENING
Plaintiff also asks the Court to expeditiously screen his First Amended Complaint.

17
(Mot., ECF No. 20.) However, since Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is about to be
18
19
20

amended pursuant to the Order herein, there is no complaint currently before the Court for
screening.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Screening is DENIED as moot.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

August 3, 2011

/s/

27
-2-

Michael J. Seng

1

ci4d6

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-