Hicks v. Arya

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/17/2018 GRANTING plaintiff's 74 motion for an extension of time; DENYING plaintiff's 64 motion to add supplemental defendants; VACATING without prejudice plaintiff's 71 , 72 motions for leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for issuance of a pre-filing order and motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant is due within 30 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. HICKS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2465 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

AFSHIN ARYA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 21, 2018, the Honorable Troy L. Nunley granted in part and

19

denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 70.) Judge Nunley also granted

20

in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Id.)

21

On September 20, 2018, defendants filed a motion for issuance of a pre-filing order and a

22

motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 69.) On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed

23

a motion for a thirty days extension of time to file a response to defendants’ September 20, 2018

24

motion. (ECF No. 74.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is

25

granted.

26

On June 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to add supplemental defendants. (ECF No. 64.)

27

However, plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed supplemental

28

complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to
1

1

the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a

2

proposed supplemental complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. Accordingly, plaintiff’s June

3

25, 2018 motion to add supplemental defendants is denied.

4

On September 21, 2018 and September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed motions for leave to file a

5

third amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 71, 72.) On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a proposed

6

third amended complaint. (ECF No. 73.)

7

Before the court considers plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a third amended complaint,

8

defendants’ motion for issuance of a pre-filing order and motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious

9

litigant must be resolved. See Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (courts have

10

inherent powers to “manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious

11

disposition of cases.”) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a third amended

12

complaint are vacated without prejudice to their reinstatement following resolution of defendants’

13

motion for issuance of a prefiling order and motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 74) is granted;

16

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for issuance of a pre-filing order and

17

motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant is due within thirty days of the date of this order;

18

3. Plaintiff’s motion to add supplemental defendants (ECF No. 64) is denied;

19

4. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF Nos. 71, 72) are

20

vacated without prejudice.

21

Dated: October 17, 2018

22
23
24
25

Hick2465.ord

26
27
28
2