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)

Download PDF
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 Because the motion to dismiss is directed to the original 26 complaint, which is now superseded by the amended complaint, defendants’ motion to dismiss is 27 28 1 See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the mailbox rule, the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

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?