Ricks v. Kamena et al

Filing 28

ORDER Discharging 26 Order to Show Cause; ORDER Directing Defendant to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Proceedings signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/21/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT K. RICKS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
C. KAMENA, et al.,
Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00715-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
(ECF No. 26)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2016, the Court

20

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he had stated cognizable claims under the Eighth

21

Amendment against Defendant Kamena for the failure to protect him from his cellmate’s attack

22

on January 13, 2014, and for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need following the

23

attack. (ECF No. 18.)

24

On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint solely with respect

25

to damages. (ECF No. 24.) The Court granted the motion on April 19, 2017, and directed

26

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint limited to the revision of his damages claim. (ECF No.

27

25). Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. On June 6, 2017, the Court issued an

28

order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and
1

1

failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 26.)

2

On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue proceedings. (ECF No.

3

27.) Plaintiff states that on April 27, 2017, during his deposition in this case, Defendant’s counsel

4

acknowledged that Plaintiff had filed a timely motion to amend with respect to the amount of

5

damages. Plaintiff believed that because Defendant’s counsel had acknowledged his motion on

6

the record, he did not need to file an amended complaint. (Id.)
Plaintiff further states that he was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) on

7
8

February 1, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that SVSP has no print law library, no law books or legal

9

reference books, and refuses to supply any type of legal materials, including 28 lined paper and

10

pens. Plaintiff has filed multiple appeals regarding SVSP’s refusal to supply legal materials, and

11

every single one of the appeals was denied. Plaintiff states that he was only able to obtain fifty

12

pages of 28 lined paper by trading with another inmate, and thus has demonstrated that he has no

13

means to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff requests that the Court proceed on the

14

cognizable claims of the complaint filed on April 26, 2015,1 and his motion to amend with respect

15

to damages, or to proceed solely on the original complaint. (Id.)
The Court finds it appropriate for Defendant Kamena to file a response to Plaintiff’s

16
17

motion to continue proceedings. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, Defendant Kamena is

18

HEREBY ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to continue proceedings, (ECF No.

19

27), within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s reply, if any,

20

shall be filed within seven (7) days following the date of service of Defendant’s response.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 21, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s original complaint was signed and dated April 26, 2015, and docketed on May 8,
2015. (ECF No. 1.)

2