Jacobsen v. Curran et al
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 7 Motion for Addendum signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/31/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:16-cv-01050-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR ADDENDUM
v.
(ECF No. 7)
OFFICER CURRAN, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to Magistrate
19
Judge jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared in the action.
20
On September 21, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and concluded
21
that it stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claim
22
against Defendant Curren and Does 1 through 8, but no other cognizable claims. Plaintiff
23
was ordered to either file an amended complaint curing the noted deficiencies or notify
24
the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (ECF No. 6.) On
25
September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Addendum” seeking to add additional
26
facts to his complaint. (ECF No. 7.)
27
It appears that the motion for addendum was submitted prior to Plaintiff receiving
28
the Court’s screening order. (See ECF No. 8.) Furthermore, Plaintiff has stated his intent
1
1
to file an amended complaint. (Id.) Accordingly, the motion for addendum (ECF No. 7) is
2
HEREBY DENIED as moot.
3
Plaintiff is reminded that any amended pleading must be complete in itself without
4
reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th
5
Cir. 1967).
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 31, 2016
/s/
9
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
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?