Mills v. Miller, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER for Clarification 7 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/22/16: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAKAN CHAMEL MILLS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0689- MJS (PC) ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 7) RYAN MILLER, et al., FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate 20 judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other parties have appeared in this action. 21 On August 19, 2016, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it 22 stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Bonffil, Clark, 23 Souvannakham, Pinedo, and Ryan. Plaintiff was informed that he could proceed on the 24 complaint as screened or file an amended complaint. 25 Pending now is Plaintiff’s “motion to withdraw complaint.” (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff 26 does not elaborate on the nature of his request. It may be that he wants to dismiss the 27 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) or that he wishes to amend the 28 1 complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or even that he wants to 2 dismiss all but the above-referenced cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this 4 Order Plaintiff file a notice clarifying the nature and objective of this motion; he should 5 simply state what it is he wants to accomplish with the motion. If Plaintiff does not 6 comply with this Order, the Court will construe his motion as one for dismissal pursuant 7 to Rule 41(a). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/ 11 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?