Glosson v. Virga et al
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 06/25/12 denying 19 Motion for sanctions and denying 28 Motion for leave to amend. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH LEE GLOSSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
ORDER
A.K. STINSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
No. 2:11-CV-1743-KJM-CMK-P
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Plaintiff seeks sanctions (Doc. 19) against defendants for failing to file a response
20
to his amended complaint. A review of the docket reflects, however, that defendants in fact filed
21
an answer and that the answer was timely. Specifically, on March 7, 2012, the court granted
22
defendants’ request for an extension of time to March 27, 2012, to file their answer. Defendants’
23
answer was filed on March 26, 2012. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions will, therefore, be denied.
24
///
25
///
26
///
1
Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend (Doc. 28).1 Specifically, plaintiff seeks to
1
2
include Engellenner as a defendant to this action. Plaintiff claims that Engellenner knew of a
3
lower bunk chrono contained in plaintiff’s central file and ignored that chrono when assigning
4
plaintiff to his housing unit in a top bunk. Though the court previously dismissed Engellenner
5
for failure to state a claim because plaintiff failed to allege facts which would show that
6
Engellenner had any actual knowledge of the lower bunk chrono, plaintiff now argues that, under
7
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, § 3269(b), he was required to examine plaintiff’s
8
central file and, therefore, must have seen the lower bunk chrono. As defendants note in their
9
opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, § 3269 applies only to housing assignments
10
for inmates newly arriving at the prison. It does not apply in this case because the housing
11
assignment in question was incident to a move from one housing unit to another in the same
12
prison and not incident to plaintiff having newly arrived at the prison. Plaintiff has not presented
13
any new factual allegations which would change the court’s prior analysis as to Engellenner.
14
By separate order the court will set an initial schedule for this case.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 19) is denied; and
17
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 28) is denied.
18
19
DATED: June 25, 2012
20
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
As defendants correctly note, plaintiff’s motion is entitled a motion to file a
supplemental complaint. That procedure is applicable where a plaintiff wishes to include
allegations concerning events occurring after the original complaint was filed. Because plaintiff
seeks to add a defendant who is alleged to have participated in the same occurrences as described
in the original pleading, plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion for leave to amend.
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?