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)

Download PDF
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

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?