Lear v. Biter et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR
Case No. 1:15-cv-01903-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR
(ECF NO. 28)
MARTIN BITER, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NOS. 29, 30)
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.)
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
1 second amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.)
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.
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.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be screened in due course.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED
as moot; and
2. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to file a second amended
complaint are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 21, 2017
Michael J. Seng
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?