Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/1/2010 ORDERING that pltf's 67 motion for clarification is PARTIALLY GRANTED; and dfts Her and Solorzano to file a responsive pleading to the 69 third amended cmplt w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)

(PC) Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Doc. 70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTHUR CARR, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of this court's August 5, 2010 order. Plaintiff claims that on July 15, 2010, he submitted the notice of amendment and third amended complaint as required by this court's June 18, 2010 order, and alleges it was filed by the court clerk on July 29, 2010. Review of the court's docket reflects the only document filed on July 29, 2010 was plaintiff's request for extension of time which he signed on July 26, 2010. However, on August 30, 2010, plaintiff ORDER No. 2:09-cv-0826 GEB KJN P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

filed the notice of amendment1 along with the proposed third amended complaint. With regard to plaintiff's concern as to discovery, the discovery deadline was vacated. Plaintiff was directed to tailor his revised discovery responses forthwith to avoid any further delay. (July 9, 2010 Order at 2.) At present, however, plaintiff is under no immediate deadline by which to submit discovery requests. A revised scheduling order will issue once defendants have answered the third amended complaint. The third amended complaint states a potentially cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. Defendants Her and Solorzano will be directed to file a responsive pleading within twenty-one days from the date of this order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's August 23, 2010 motion for clarification (dkt. no. 67) is partially granted; and 2. Defendants Her and Solorzano shall file a responsive pleading within twentyone days from the date of this order. DATED: September 1, 2010

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

carr0826.cla

As plaintiff points out, the June 18 order required the filing of a notice of amendment form rather than a "notice of submission" form. 2

1