Muhammad v. Garrett

Filing 45

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/16/2014. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 KAREEM MUHAMMAD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. CHAD GARRETT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ) Case Nos.: 1:12-cv-01199 - AWI - JLT ) ) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS ) TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Kareem Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) has filed three motions to amend his complaint in this action 18 19 since December 19, 2013, which are pending before the Court, the most recent of which was filed on 20 January 13, 2014. (Docs. 37, 40, and 42.) Although it is apparent Plaintiff seeks to change the 21 defendant, each of the proposed Third Amended Complaints are different. (Compare Doc. 38 with 22 Docs. 41 and 43.) Plaintiff is informed he may only have one pleading in this case, and must inform 23 the Court upon which motion he desires to proceed. The other motions to amend will be terminated 24 by the Court. In addition, because Plaintiff no longer seeks to proceed with his claims against Chad 25 Garrett (see Docs. 37, 38, 40, and 43), Plaintiff is directed to show cause why his claims against 26 Officer Garret should not be dismissed with prejudice. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before January 24, 2014, Plaintiff 2 SHALL: 3 1. Notify the Court regarding which motion to amend he desires to proceed upon; and 4 2. Show cause why claims against Officer Garrett should not be dismissed with prejudice. 5 Failure to comply with this order may result in an order dismissing this litigation. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?