Burnett v. Lima et al

Filing 12

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ONLY ON EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM OR FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS APRIL 5, 2017, ORDER RE 1 , 10 , 11 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/18/2017. (Filing Deadline: 5/12/2017).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLOS BURNETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

L. LIMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01671-SAB (PC)
SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED
ONLY ON EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM OR FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE COURT’S APRIL 5, 2017, ORDER
[ECF Nos. 1, 10, 11]

Plaintiff Carlos Burnett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 5, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

20

found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Christopher

21

Constello, Brent Urban and William Jones and a cognizable claim for failing to intervene against

22

Defendant M. Lefler. (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations did not give rise to

23

an unrelated claim of denial of access to the Courts. (Id.) The Court directed Plaintiff to either file an

24

amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the excessive force and failure

25

to intervene claims found to be cognizable. (Id.)

26

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s April 5, 2017, order; however, the

27

Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is intending to proceed solely on the excessive force and

28

failure to intervene claims. The caption of the notice states “NOTIFY THE COURT OF (ELITE) IN
1

1

SUPPORT OF OFFICIAL OF STRATFORD INSTITUTE; LEAVE OF DENIAL OF INJURY

2

VIOLATE CONSTITUTION CLAIM; IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT INTENT TO PROCEED ON

3

CLAIM TO BE FOUND COGNIZABLE.” (ECF No. 11.) Although Plaintiff states that he intends to

4

proceed on the cognizable claims, Plaintiff’s notice appears to elaborate on the alleged denial of access

5

to the courts claim which was found to be non-cognizable and unrelated. (ECF No. 10.) In light of

6

the ambiguity present in Plaintiff’s notice, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a further response to

7

the Court’s April 5, 2017, order.

8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either

10

file an amended complaint or a notice clearly stating that he intends to proceed solely on the excessive

11

force and failure to intervene claims; and
2.

12
13

Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to

comply with a court order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

April 18, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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