Anderson v. Krpan et al
Filing
17
ORDER Regarding First Amended Complaint 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/10/15: Fourteen (14) Day Response Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
SHAWN ANDERSON,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01380-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER REGARDING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
v.
(ECF NO. 16)
CHRIS KRPAN, et al.,
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY RESPONSE
DEADLINE
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 4 & 14.)
18
Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he
19
was given leave to amend (ECF No. 5.) On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first
20
amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On October 27, 2014, the Court struck Plaintiff’s first
21
amended complaint because it was unsigned. (ECF No. 10.) The Court instructed
22
Plaintiff to file a signed amended pleading within thirty days. (Id.) The Court also noted
23
that the unsigned first amended complaint was substantively deficient, advised Plaintiff
24
of the legal standards applicable to what appeared to be Plaintiff’s claims, and instructed
25
Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies in his amended pleading. (Id.)
26
On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff again filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No.
27
14.) On January 29, 2015, the Court again struck Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
28
1
because it was unsigned, and again noted that the unsigned first amended complaint
2
was substantively deficient. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed amended
3
pleading, curing the noted deficiencies, within thirty days. (Id.)
4
On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a signed first amended complaint. (ECF No.
5
16.) The signed first amended complaint is dated January 28, 2015, one day prior to the
6
Court’s most recent screening order. The signed first amended complaint appears to be
7
nearly identical to the unsigned complaints the Court previously found to be deficient.
8
(See ECF Nos. 9 & 14.)
9
Plaintiff seemingly mailed his signed first amended complaint prior to receiving the
10
Court’s most recent screening order. Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff an
11
opportunity to withdraw the complaint if he wishes, and to file a signed amended
12
complaint that comports with the Court’s screening order. If Plaintiff instead chooses to
13
proceed with screening of the already-filed February 2, 2015 amended complaint, and
14
the allegations are found to be deficient for reasons stated in the Court's prior screening
15
order, the February 2, 2015 amended complaint may be dismissed without further leave
16
to amend.
17
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to notify the Court within fourteen
18
(14) days whether he will withdraw the February 2, 2015 first amended complaint, or
19
wishes to proceed with screening of that complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to
20
this order, the Court will proceed with screening of the February 2, 2015 first amended
21
complaint.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 10, 2015
/s/
25
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?