Harris v. Malakkla et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/15/2018 STRIKING 33 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID D. HARRIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-2040 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER N. MALAKKLA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff alleges he is not being provided proper pain medication in violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment. The court found plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 14) stated claims 20 against defendants Malakkla and Yusufzie. (ECF No. 17.) Defendants filed a waiver of service 21 on October 29, 2018 (ECF No. 31), but have yet to file an answer. 22 On November 9, 2018 plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 33.) The filing 23 contains a copy of plaintiff’s first amended complaint, as well as an additional eight handwritten 24 pages setting forth the same information contained in the first amended complaint, and eight 25 pages of exhibits related to plaintiff’s claim. 26 Because it appears that plaintiff is not attempting to change his complaint in any material 27 way, such as adding new allegations, claims, or defendants, the court will strike the second 28 amended complaint. However, if plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint he may file a motion to 1 1 amend the complaint explaining the reason for the amendment. Plaintiff is informed that any 2 amended complaint it will be subject to the screening requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1915A. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF 4 No. 33) shall be stricken from the record. 5 Dated: November 15, 2018 6 7 8 9 DLB:12 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr2040.Amd 10 11 12 13 14 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?