Baker v. Beam et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Clarify/Reconsider Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/10/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MIKE BAKER,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.
E. BEAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CLARIFY/RECONSIDER SCREENING ORDER
(ECF No. 22)

14
15

Plaintiff Mike Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

17

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

18

On May 10, 2017, the Court issued and order screening Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,

19

and requiring him to either file a second amended complaint, or a notice that he was willing to proceed

20

only on the claims found to be cognizable in that pleading. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff subsequently

21

sought extensions of time to comply with that order, (ECF Nos. 16, 19, 21, 23), which were granted,

22

(ECF Nos. 17, 20, 24).

23

Plaintiff also filed the instant motion for the Court to clarify/reconsider its order screening his

24

first amended complaint, on August 7, 2017. (ECF No. 22). However, on September 11, 2017, before

25

the Court could rule on that motion, Plaintiff filed a second amended civil rights complaint, as

26

permitted by the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 25.)

27

“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal

28

effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, this case does not
1

1

proceed upon Plaintiff’s prior complaints, but instead proceeds upon his current second amended

2

complaint. His motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior screening order is rendered moot by his

3

filing of a subsequent second amended complaint. That complaint will be screened in due course.

4
5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s screening order is HEREBY
DENIED, as moot.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated:
9

/s/ Barbara

October 10, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2