Brown v. United States of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Miscellaneous Motions (ECF Nos. 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2012. Plaintiff's Motions (ECF Nos. 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 ) are hereby DENIED. (Fahrney, E)

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
MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

11
(ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19, 21, 23)
12

v.

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). (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

20

Plaintiff’s September 15, 2011 Complaint was screened by the Court and dismissed

21

for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.

22

(Order Dismiss, ECF No. 12.)

23

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2012 (First Am. Compl., ECF

24

No. 16) which the Court screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Order Dismiss First

25

Am. Compl., ECF No. 22.)

26

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions: to Clarify the First Amended Complaint

27

(Mot. Clarify, ECF No. 17), to Add a Named Defendant (Mot. Add Def., ECF No. 18), to

28

Add a Certificate of Service (Mot. Add Certif., ECF No. 19), and to Add and Amend
-1-

1

Supplemental Complaint to First Amended Complaint, the last of which the Court construes

2

as motions to amend or supplement the First Amended Complaint. Also before the Court

3

is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Response regarding Service of the First Amended Complaint (Mot.

4

For Resp., ECF No. 21), which the Court construes as a request for status.

5

These motions are moot. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has been dismissed

6

and he has been given thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint. He should

7

review the May 2, 2012 second screening order to ensure his amended complaint

8

complies.

9

The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve an amended complaint only

10

after the Court has screened it and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief

11

against the named Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 21, 23) are hereby DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
ci4d6

May 4, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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