Lear v. Biter et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER DENYING 29 30 Motions for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01903-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF NO. 28)

MARTIN BITER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NOS. 29, 30)

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 21, 2016, the Court
19 screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and concluded that it stated a cognizable
20 Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim for damages against Defendants
21 Akanno and Palomino, but no other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was ordered to file an
22 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the
23 cognizable claims. (ECF No. 27.)
24

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

25 reconsideration of the screening order. (ECF No. 28.) On December 12, 2016 and
26 December 21, 2016, he filed motions for an extension of time to file his second
27 amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) Also on December 21, 2016, he timely filed his
28

1 second amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.)
2

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint supersedes his first amended complaint.

3 See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, arguments regarding his first
4 amended complaint and the screening thereof are moot. His request for leave to file a
5 motion for reconsideration will be denied on that basis.
6

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was timely filed. Thus, there is no basis for

7 granting Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, and these too will be denied as moot.
8

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be screened in due course.

9

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED

10

as moot; and

11

2. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to file a second amended

12

complaint are DENIED as moot.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2017

/s/

17

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2