Bolds v. Cavazos et al

Filing 18

ORDER Directing Plaintiff To File An Amended Complaint, Amended Complaint Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/10/2015.(Second Amended Complaint due by 7/14/2015) (Fahrney, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:12 cv 01754 GSA PC

WILLIE BOLDS,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

J. CAVAZOS, et al.,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Defendants

12
13

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

14

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction

15
16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On January 10, 2014, an order was entered, dismissing this case in its entirety for failure

17

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On March 20, 2015, a memorandum

18

judgment was entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming in part and

19

reversing in part the January 10, 2014, order of dismissal. The Ninth Circuit upheld the

20

dismissal of Plaintiff’s free exercise claim, unreasonable cell search claim and due process

21

claims regarding the prison grievance process.

22

Regarding Plaintiff’s due process claim alleging an improper deprivation of property, the

23

Ninth Circuit held that the claim “was properly dismissed because he presented only conclusory

24

allegations of a deprivation pursuant to ‘established state procedures.’ . . . However, dismissal

25

of this claim without leave to amend was improper at this early stage in the case because it is not

26

clear that Bolds cannot cure the defect through amendment.” Accordingly, the

27

dismissal of that claim was vacated and remanded to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend that

28

1

1
2
3
4
5

claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the
date of service of this order, filed a second amended complaint that is limited to the scope of the
March 20, 2015, order by the Ninth Circuit. Failure to comply with this order will result in
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated:

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

June 10, 2015