Jenkins v. Davis, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER Striking 15 Amended Complaint for Failure to Comply with Screening Order, Denying 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Requiring Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint within Thirty Days signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/28/2013. Amended Complaint due by 12/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HAROLD JENKINS,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

R. DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 1:13-cv-00038-LJO-SKO PC
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH SCREENING ORDER, DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, AND REQUIRING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(Docs. 14 and 15)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Harold Jenkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 10, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the
19 Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
20 On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion seeking a preliminary
21 injunction.
22

This action arises from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property while he was incarcerated at

23 California State Prison-Corcoran in 2011. Plaintiff, who is now incarcerated at Valley State
24 Prison (“VSP”), was provided with the applicable legal standards and he was informed that he
25 may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint.
26 Despite this admonition, Plaintiff’s amended complaint sets forth his property claims and also sets
27 forth new, unrelated claims arising out of conditions of confinement at VSP.
28 ///

Plaintiff’s amended complaint violates the screening order. Plaintiff must confine his

1

2 amended complaint to those claims at issue in his original complaint and addressed in the
3 screening order. Plaintiff may not pursue his new, unrelated claims in this action, and if he seeks
4 to litigate his conditions of confinement at VSP, he is required to file a separate lawsuit. Fed. R.
5 Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507
6 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff will be provided with one more opportunity to file an
7 amended complaint in compliance with the screening order. If he fails to do so, this action
8 will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.
9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on October 25, 2013, is STRICKEN from the

11 record for failure to comply with the screening order;
12

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction remedying conditions of

13 confinement at VSP, filed on October 25, 2013, is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction;1
14

3.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

15

4.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in compliance with the screening order

16 within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and
17

5.

The failure to comply with the terms of this order will result in dismissal of

18 this action.
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

22

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 28, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

25
26
27
28

1

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

2