Randle v. Goodwin et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/12/2017 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 9 notice of substitution ; DENYING without prejudice defendants' 13 motion to dismiss ; GRANTING defendants' 15 request for screening; and defendants Bobbola and Goodwin are relieved of their obligation to file a responsive pleading until further order of the court. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2419 KJN P

v.

ORDER

M. GOODWIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On April 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of

18

substitution of Doe parties and sought service of process on the newly-named defendants. On

19

June 2, 2017, defendants Bobbola and Goodwin filed a motion to dismiss. However, on June 1,

20

2017, plaintiff presented an amended complaint to prison authorities for mailing, which was filed

21

with this court on June 5, 2017. On June 7, 2017, defendants Bobbola and Goodwin requested

22

the court screen the amended pleading, and be relieved of their obligation to file a responsive

23

pleading until further order of court.
Under the mailbox rule,1 plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed as of right prior to the

24
25

filing of the motion to dismiss. Because the motion to dismiss is directed to the original

26

complaint, which is now superseded by the amended complaint, defendants’ motion to dismiss is

27
28

1

See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the mailbox rule, the
petition is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing).
1

1

moot and is denied. Defendants’ request to screen the amended complaint is granted; the

2

pleading will be screened by separate order. In addition, plaintiff included his claims against

3

defendants Tripoli and Yang in his amended complaint; thus, his notice of substitution of their

4

names for those named as Doe defendants in the original complaint, is also moot and is denied.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s notice of substitution (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice;

7

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice;

8

3. Defendants’ request for screening (ECF No. 15) is granted; and

9

4. Defendants Bobbola and Goodwin are relieved of their obligation to file a responsive

10

pleading until further order of court.

11

Dated: June 12, 2017

12
13
14
/rand2419.den

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2