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)
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?