Mitchell v. Beard et al

Filing 23

ORDER OVERRULING 22 Plaintiff's Objections signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MITCHELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:17-cv-01032-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS v. CDCR SECRETARY JEFFERY BEARD, et al., (ECF No. 22)___________ 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert Mitchell (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 12, 2017 in the 19 Central District of California. On August 3, 3017, the matter was transferred to the Eastern 20 District of California. 21 On August 23, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim 22 under section 1983 and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the 24 order, and on October 2, 2017, the Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections and granted Plaintiff an 25 additional thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) On November 13, 2017, 26 the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal because the Court did 27 not receive an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) However, on November 27, 2017, the Court 28 vacated the Findings and Recommendations based on Plaintiff’s contention that 1 1 he attempted to file his first amended complaint but it was returned to him with a notation that 2 the case number was incorrect, and Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was filed. (ECF No. 20.) On December 5, 2017, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was stricken because it 3 4 violated the Court’s August 23, 2017 order which directed that the amended complaint could not 5 exceed 25 pages. (ECF No. 21.) On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections “to [t]he Court’s Order Dismissing 6 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend For Failure to State a Claim.” (ECF No. 22.) It is 8 unclear what specific order Plaintiff is objecting to. In addition, the objections are identical to 9 the objections Plaintiff previously filed on September 25, 2017, which were overruled in the 10 Court’s October 2, 2017 order. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 22.) Accordingly, for the same reasons 11 explained in the Court’s October 2, 2017 order, Plaintiff’s objections are HEREBY 12 OVERRULED, and any amended complaint is due on or before January 4, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) 13 Plaintiff needs to focus his attention on filing his amended complaint, otherwise, his case will be 14 recommended to be dismissed for the reasons previously stated. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: December 12, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?