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)

Download PDF
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

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?