Hollis v. Mims et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/5/2012 disregarding 14 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint and directing Clerk's Office to file Second Amended Complaint in case number 1:11-cv-00748-AWI-SKO as a First Amended Complaint. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MICHAEL EUGENE HOLLIS,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-000739-AWI-GBC (PC)
ORDER DISREGARDING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING
CLERK’S OFFICE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CASE NUMBER
1:11-cv-00748-AWI-SKO AS A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.

14

/ Doc. 14

15
16

On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Eugene Hollis (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se

17

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On October

18

17, 2011, the Court issued a screening order, dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend.

19

Doc. 7. On November 9, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty day extension of time

20

to file an amended complaint. Doc. 9. On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

21

Doc. 10. On March 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed the exhibits to his first amended complaint. Doc. 13. The

22

Court has not screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint in this action.

23

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed Hollis v. Laird, et al., 1:11-cv-00748-AWI-SKO, as a

24

separate civil action in this district. On March 22, 2012, the Court issued a screening order,

25

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend. Doc. 10. On April 11, 2012, the Court granted

26

Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. Doc. 12.

27

On June 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in this case, listing the case

28

number for this civil action. Doc. 14. The Court has reviewed the allegations in the second amended
Page 1 of 2

1

complaint and finds that Plaintiff intended to file this pleading in the separate action of Hollis v.

2

Laird, 1:11-cv-00748-AWI-SKO. The allegations in his second amended complaint, together with

3

the timing of Plaintiff’s filing, lead the Court to believe Plaintiff intended to file an amended

4

complaint in the other case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is DISREGARDED

5

in this civil action, and the Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s office to file the second amended complaint

6

as a first amended complaint in Hollis v. Laird, 1:11-cv-00748-AWI-SKO.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
7j8cce

July 5, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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