Gray v. Johnson et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting 42 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/18/2015. Amended Complaint due by 9/21/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANA GRAY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 1:13-cv-01473 DLB PC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND v. (Document 42) 14 JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Dana Gray (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 17 18 filed this civil rights action on September 12, 2013.1 Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed a First 19 Amended Complaint on May 5, 2014, and a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on February 23, 20 2015. 21 The Court screened the SAC on April 27, 2015, and ordered Plaintiff to either file an 22 amended complaint or notify the Court of her willingness only to proceed on the cognizable claims. 23 On May 12, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to comply with 24 the order. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 6, 2015, and it is awaiting screening. 25 On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Third Amended Complaint. 26 Plaintiff seeks to correct typographical errors on page 52 of the Third Amended Complaint. 27 28 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on October 16, 2013. 1 1 Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. However, the Court will not insert the attached corrected 2 page 52 into the Third Amended Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff must file a complete amended 3 complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff does not do so, the 4 Court will proceed with screening the Third Amended Complaint. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis August 18, 2015 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?