Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion/Request for Service of Complaint and Objections to Screening Order as Moot; ORDER Granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/15/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
A. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION/REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF
COMPLAINT AND OBJECTIONS TO
SCREENING ORDER AS MOOT
(ECF No. 20)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
NUNC PRO TUNC
(ECF Nos. 20, 21)

17
18

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 18, 2014,

20

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found that he

21

stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

22

against Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch and Bell,

23

but did not state any other claims. Therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff to either file a first

24

amended complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable

25

claims. (ECF No. 17.)

26

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting service of the original

27

complaint, objections to the screening order and a motion for extension of time to file his

28

amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.)
1

1
2

On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for a 60-day extension of time to
comply with the screening order. (ECF No. 21.)

3

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.)

4

Based on the filing of a first amended complaint, Plaintiff’s motion requesting service of

5

the original complaint and his objections to the screening order granting him leave to amend HIS

6

complaint are now moot and HEREBY DENIED. However, Plaintiff established good cause for

7

the extensions of time to file his first amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests to

8

extend the time to file his first amended complaint are HEREBY GRANTED NUNC PRO

9

TUNC. Plaintiff is advised that his first amended complaint will be screened in due course.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 15, 2015

12

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2