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