Brown v. United States of America et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 14 Motion to Amend or Supplement the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/26/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSEPH ANTHONY BROWN, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01562-MJS PC Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT 11 12 v. (ECF No. 14) 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Brown, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 19 of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented 20 to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 21 Plaintiff’s September 15, 2011 Complaint was screened by the Court and dismissed 22 for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint 23 provided he does so by April 16, 2012. (ECF No. 12.) 24 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Requested Motion and Motion to give Notice 25 to Court of Added Supplemental Plea Change to Bivens Claims (ECF No. 14) which the 26 Court construes as a motion to amend or supplement the Complaint. 27 This motion is moot. Plaintiff’s Complaint has been given leave to file an amended 28 complaint by April 16, 2012. He should review the March 14, 2012 Screening Order to -1- 1 ensure his amended complaint complies with the terms of that Order. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Requested Motion and Motion to give Notice to 3 Court of Added Supplemental Plea Change to Bivens Claims (ECF No. 14) is hereby 4 DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: ci4d6 March 26, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?