Applegate v. Smith et al
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Notify the Court of his Intent, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/11/2016. (30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER REQURING PLAINTIFF TO
NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS INTENT
KAMBREA SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiff Brian Applegate is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is currently
awaiting screening. The Court notes that on August 15, 2016, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed a
similar case, apparently because at least one of the issues Plaintiff complained of was resolved.
(Voluntary Dismissal, Applegate v. Clark, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00207-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.
Aug. 15, 2016), ECF No. 21.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff is currently pursuing an
action, Applegate v. Robicheaux, Case No. 1:15-cv-01016-LJO-EPG, in tandem with this case
that appears to involve similar and overlapping claims. Applegate v. Robicheaux was initially
filed less than two weeks after the complaint in the current case.
Because Plaintiff has dismissed his claims in Applegate v. Clark and is currently
pursuing claims in Applegate v. Robicheaux that overlap with the claims in Clark and in the
current case, it is unclear to the Court what Plaintiff’s intent with respect to these cases is.
Plaintiff may have intended to dismiss all of his related cases when he dismissed Clark.
Alternatively, he may believe that he has separate and distinguishable claims amongst Clark,
Robicheaux, and this case. Or it may even be that the current case was filed as a draft version
of Robicheaux and that the complaint in Robicheaux was intended to supplant the claims in the
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff
File a written report with this Court that states whether any of the issues in this
case have been resolved and identify which, if any, claims in this case Plaintiff
would like to continue to pursue. Plaintiff is advised that he may not pursue
identical claims in more than one case;
Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint to reflect any
changes in the scope of the claims or relief sought in this case. Should Plaintiff
choose to file an amended complaint, he should note that exhibits and
attachments are not required and he should confine his allegations to 25 pages or
If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue the claims in this case, he should notify
the Court by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal.
Failure to comply with this order may result in this case being dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 11, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?