Hernandez v. Ballam, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 41 Request for Clarification, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/15/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 ANTHONY CEASAR HERNANDEZ, 9 10 11 12 Case No.: 1:17-cv-00468-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Plaintiff, v. [ECF No. 41] BALLAM, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Currently before the court is Defendants’ request for clarification of the April 9, 2018 18 order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his prayer for relief. (ECF No. 41.) Defendants request 19 clarification of their deadline to file a responsive pleading. 20 Defendants are correct that, assuming Plaintiff complies with the court’s order and files a 21 proposed third amended complaint in this action, that pleading will supersede the current second 22 amended complaint. Further, that pleading must be screened under the Prison Litigation Reform 23 Act and to ensure compliance with the Court’s order before Defendants are required to file any 24 responsive pleading. 25 Therefore, Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading in 26 this action is granted. The court will issue an order setting a deadline for Defendants’ responsive 27 pleading after the operative complaint in this action is determined, and their obligation to 28 respond is relieved until further order of the court. 1 1 Accordingly, Defendants’ request for clarification of the April 9, 2018 order granting 2 Plaintiff leave to amend is HEREBY GRANTED, as explained above. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 15, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 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?