Jackson et al v. State of California et al

Filing 24

ORDER vacating order striking amended complaint and denying defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/18/2013. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON, et al., 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB ORDER VACATING ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF Nos. 15, 23) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The complaint in this action was filed on July 9, 2013. On September 25, 2013, 18 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on 19 October 16, 2013. On October 18, 2013, this Court issued an order in error striking Plaintiff’s 20 first amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) Therefore, the order issued on October 18, 2013, shall 21 be vacated and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint shall be reinstated on the docket. 22 The original complaint has now been superseded by the amended complaint. Forsyth v. 23 Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 24 1987). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as moot and the hearing set for 25 November 6, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the undersigned is vacated. 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The order striking Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is VACATED; 28 2. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to reinstate the first amended complaint; 1 1 3. Defendants motion to dismiss, filed September 25, 2013, is DENIED; and 2 4. The hearing set for November 6, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 October 18, 2013 _ _ 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?