Watkins v. Singh et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/17/13 plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint 29 is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis 27 is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; and Plaintiffs motion to correct filing 28 is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

NOEL KEITH WATKINS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
VAMIL SINGH, et al.,
Defendant.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

16
17

No. 2: 12-cv-1343 GEB JFM (PC)

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

On December 20, 2012, the court screened the amended complaint that was filed

19

on November 29, 2012. The amended complaint was dismissed but plaintiff was given thirty

20

days leave to file a second amended complaint. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion

21

for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the motion will be

22

granted.

23

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, plaintiff

24

was previously granted in forma pauperis status. Therefore, his motion to proceed in forma

25

pauperis not necessary.

26

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion to correct a filing. The docket indicates that
1

1

plaintiff filed amended complaints on December 19, 2012 and December 28, 2012. Both of

2

these amended complaints were dated prior to the December 20, 2012 order which screened the

3

November 29, 2012 amended complaint. The two December amended complaints allege that

4

plaintiff was assaulted while in prison which is different from plaintiff’s deliberate indifference

5

claims that he raised in the November 29, 2012 amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the

6

December filings should be filed as a separate action and requests that the court make it so. In

7

light of the fact that plaintiff has filed numerous complaints, and so as to avoid any possible

8

confusion, the motion to correct filing will be denied.1

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Dkt.

11

No. 29.) is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of

12

the date of this order.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 27.) is DENIED AS

13
14

UNNECESSARY; and
3. Plaintiff’s motion to correct filing (Dkt. No. 28.) is DENIED.

15
16

DATED: January 17, 2013.

17
18
19
20
21

14
watk1343.eot(1)

22
23
24
25
26

1

Should plaintiff wish to proceed with a case arising from the allegations of the
December 2012 amended complaints, plaintiff should follow the procedure he followed when he
initiated this case in May 2012. In light of plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an
amended complaint, it appears clear that plaintiff does not wish either of his December 2012
amended complaints to be the operative complaint in this action.
2