Pullett v. Castellanos et al

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ;Third Amended Complaint due by March 4, 2016, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 1/25/2016. Third Amended Complaint due by 3/4/2016 (Martin-Gill, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DELL PULLETT,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00755-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.
J. CASTELLANOS, et al.,
Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dell
Pullett, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.1
Pullett’s Second Amended Complaint arises out of his incarceration at the California
Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, Corcoran (“CSATF”). Pullett is currently
incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Center, San Diego.
I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2 The Court

1

In his Second Amended Complaint Pullet names as Defendants J. Castellanos,
Correctional Officer, and John Does 1 and 2.
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 1

set forth the standards applicable to screening in its initial Dismissal Order;3 therefore, the
Court does not repeat them herein.
II.

PRIOR DISMISSAL ORDER
In dismissing the First Amended Complaint the Court permitted Pullett to amend

with respect to his Third Cause of Action, an Eighth Amendment claim as against a
correctional officer, J. Castellanos, and the John Doe Defendants that arose out of a
stabbing incident that occurred while Pullett was walking unescorted between his cell and
the infirmary on May 13, 2013.4
III.

GRAVAMEN OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pullett’s Second Amended Complaint consists of ten paragraphs. The first two

paragraphs appear to refer to Pullett’s attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies with
respect to a CDC-115 (Rules Violation Report) related to an incident that occurred on
May 9, 2011. Paragraphs 3 through 7 appear to provide a basis for an apparent failure to
respond to the May 9, 2011, CDC-115. Paragraphs 8 and 9 appear to address Pullett’s
inability to identify the two John Doe Defendants. Paragraph 10 simply incorporates the
first nine paragraphs.
IV.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which refers to an incident that occurred two

years prior to the stabbing incident for which the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend,

3

Docket 9.

4

Docket 13, pp. 14–15.

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 2

does not comply with the Court’s Order dismissing the First Amended Complaint. The
Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with an order of the Court.5 The Second
Amended Complaint clearly fails to comply with the Court’s earlier dismissal order.
V.

ORDER
The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Pullett is granted through and including Friday, March 4, 2016, within which to file

a Third Amended Complaint consistent with this Order and the first Dismissal Order.6
Failure to comply with this Order within the time specified, or such additional
time as the Court may grant, may result in the dismissal of this action without further
notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

6

Docket 9.

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Pullett v. Castellanos, 1:15-cv-00755-RRB – 3