Humes v. Sacramento County

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/9/2018 DENYING as moot 18 Motion to Proceed IFP; DENYING as unnecessary 19 Motion to Amend; and GRANTING Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON HUMES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0015 KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se. On May 4, 2018,

18

plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

19

On June 5, 2018, plaintiff was granted an extension of time in which to amend his complaint.

20

Plaintiff failed to do so, and on July 11, 2018, the undersigned recommended that this action be

21

dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to timely amend his complaint.

22

On July 23, 2018, plaintiff filed another motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a

23

motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff apologizes for his delay, claiming he is

24

juggling 20 or more cases in addition to two criminal cases in state court. Plaintiff states he is

25

now “determined to address this case.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) He asks for a copy of his pleadings in

26

this case, and a blank § 1983 complaint.

27
28

First, plaintiff is admonished that he is responsible for diligently prosecuting his own
cases, including keeping accurate records of his cases and meeting court deadlines. Plaintiff has

1

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case; therefore, his July 23, 2018 motion

2

to proceed in forma pauperis, the fifth such motion filed in this action, is denied as moot.

3

Second, the May 4, 2018 order granted plaintiff leave to amend, so plaintiff was not

4

required to file a motion for leave to amend. Rather, plaintiff was required to file an amended

5

complaint. Plaintiff did not append an amended complaint to his motion.

6
7

Third, plaintiff is advised that the court does not provide copies of pleadings without
charge.1 Plaintiff’s request for copies of his pleadings is denied without prejudice.

8

Fourth, in an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to file an

9

amended complaint. In order to assist plaintiff in doing so, the Clerk of the Court is directed to

10

send plaintiff a copy of the May 4, 2018 order that provides a synopsis of his complaint, as well

11

as the standards governing the claims raised therein.

12

Fifth, plaintiff is warned that he may not raise the same claim in multiple cases. For

13

example, in the instant complaint, plaintiff alleged excessive force. However, plaintiff is

14

pursuing excessive force claims in Humes v. Sacramento County Jail, No. 2:17-cv-1870 MCE

15

AC (E.D. Cal.) and Humes v. Lukenbill, No. 2:17-cv-2609 KJN (E.D. Cal.). Therefore, plaintiff

16

may not raise excessive force claims based on the incidents raised in those prior cases in the

17

instant action. Claims arising from the same incident, even against different defendants, must be

18

brought in the same case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (all persons may be joined in one action as

19

defendants if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative

20

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

21

occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the

22

action.”).

23

Finally, given the delay in this action, the court will not vacate the findings and

24

recommendations. Rather, the findings and recommendations will be held in abeyance pending

25

1

26
27
28

The Clerk’s Office will provide copies of documents and of the docket sheet at $0.50 per page.
Checks in the exact amount are made payable to “Clerk, USDC.” Please Note: In Forma
Pauperis status does provide for the cost of copies. Copies of documents in cases may also be
obtained by printing from the public terminals at the Clerk’s Office or by contacting Cal Legal
Support Group at 3104 "O" Street, Suite 291, Sacramento, CA 95816, phone [phone], fax
916-400-4948.
2

1

plaintiff’s compliance with this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to timely file an

2

amended complaint, the July 11, 2018 findings and recommendations will be routed to the district

3

court for review and adoption.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Plaintiff’s fifth motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot.

6

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 19) is denied as unnecessary.

7

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended

8

complaint that complies with the May 4, 2018 order. Failure to do so will result in the routing of

9

the July 11, 2018 findings and recommendations to the district court.

10

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the May 4, 2018 order

11

(ECF No. 11).

12

Dated: August 9, 2018

13
14
hume0015.36

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3