Mosley v. Beard, et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/01/16 ordering Plaintiffs request to issue summons 15 , filed November 28, 2016, isstricken from the record. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction 16 , filed November 28, 2016,is stric ken from the record. Plaintiffs affidavit 17 , filed November 28, 2016, is stricken from therecord. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 18 , filed November 28, 2016, isstricken from the record. The clerk should disregard the Acknowledgment of Receipt of service documents 14 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARLTON V. MOSLEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0486 JAM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights

18

action, filed several documents which appear to have been misfiled: a request to issue summons

19

(ECF No. 15); a motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 16); an affidavit (ECF No. 17);

20

and a “First” Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff has also submitted service documents

21

for the “First” Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) filed November 28, 2016. See ECF No. 14.

22

For the following reasons, these documents will be stricken.

23

At the outset, plaintiff already filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of right on

24

September 12, 2016. See ECF No. 13. The Court has yet to screen the originally filed First

25

Amended Complaint to determine whether it states a claim for relief. Plaintiff has not been

26

granted leave to file another amended complaint or been directed to submit service documents.

27
28

Furthermore, plaintiff appears to have misfiled the November 28, 2016 documents. The
second “First” Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) and motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF
1

1

No. 16) and the original First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) and motion for a preliminary

2

injunction (ECF No. 4) concern unrelated claims against different defendants. See George v.

3

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants

4

not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Thus,

5

the November 28, 2016 documents should be stricken because they are unrelated to the claims

6

and defendants in this case. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff has other civil

7

rights actions pending, see 2:16-cv-00420-MCE-AC and 2:16-cv-00519-MCE-CMK. Plaintiff

8

may either file the stricken documents in the proper case or initiate a new case under a new case

9

number and with a new application to proceed in forma pauperis as appropriate. The court will

10

consider the original First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) and motion for preliminary

11

injunction (ECF No. 4) in due course.

12

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s request to issue summons (ECF No. 15), filed November 28, 2016, is

14

stricken from the record;

15
16

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 16), filed November 28, 2016,
is stricken from the record;

17
18
19
20
21

3. Plaintiff’s affidavit (ECF No. 17), filed November 28, 2016, is stricken from the
record;
4. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18), filed November 28, 2016, is
stricken from the record; and
5. The clerk should disregard the Acknowledgment of Receipt of service documents

22

(ECF No. 14).

23

DATED: December 1, 2016

24
25
26
27
28
2