Litmon v. Brown
Filing
35
ORDER granting re 34 Request filed by David Litmon, Jr.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/25/11. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DAVID LITMON, JR.,
9
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
No. C-10-3894 EMC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
EDMUND G. BROWN, Attorney General of
California,
(Docket No. 34)
12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
15
16
Plaintiff has moved the Court for a clarification regarding its order of April 29, 2011. In that
17
order, the Court set aside the judgment and reopened the case to give Plaintiff an opportunity to file
18
an amended complaint containing an equal protection claim. See Docket No. 31 (order). The Court
19
hereby GRANTS the request for clarification.
20
Plaintiff has leave to file a first amended complaint. More specifically, Plaintiff has leave to
21
assert the equal protection claim denominated as “Claim Two” in his proposed first amended
22
complaint, which was filed on March 16, 2011. See Docket No. 22 (proposed first amended
23
complaint, attached to motion for leave to file first amended complaint). That claim must be
24
directed to Defendant Brown and not Defendant Harris. See Docket No. 29 (Order at 1-2) (noting
25
that “Plaintiff clarified in his reply that said claim is directed solely against Defendant Brown”).
26
Plaintiff does not have permission to reassert in his first amended complaint the due process and
27
double jeopardy claims already ruled upon (referred to as the first and third claims in the proposed
28
first amended complaint).
1
The Court understands that Plaintiff wishes to appeal the dismissal of the due process and
2
double jeopardy claims. Plaintiff may do so, if he wishes, after a final judgment is entered in this
3
case. A final judgment will be entered in this case after the equal protection claim is resolved (that
4
is, assuming Plaintiff does file a first amended complaint asserting an equal protection claim).
5
As a final point, the Court notes that, in its order of April 29, 2011, it instructed Plaintiff to
6
file his first amended complaint by May 29, 2011. Given that this date is fast approaching, and
7
Plaintiff has apparently been under some confusion, the Court shall give Plaintiff additional time to
8
file his first amended complaint. Plaintiff shall have until June 24, 2011, to file a first amended
9
complaint containing the equal protection claim referenced above. Defendant shall have until July
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
25, 2011, to file a response.
The case management conference set for July 13, 2011 is rescheduled for September 2, 2011
at 9:00 a.m. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed by August 26, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: May 25, 2011
16
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DAVID LITMON, JR.,
9
Plaintiffs
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-10-3894 EMC
EDMUND G. BROWN, Attorney General of
California,
12
Defendants.
13
14
___________________________________/
15
16
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern
17
District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing
18
said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing
19
said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery
20
receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.
21
22
DAVID LITMON, JR.
29083 Mission Boulevard, Apt. 207
Hayward, CA 94544
23
Dated: May 25, 2011
RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK
24
25
26
27
28
By:
Betty Lee
Deputy Clerk
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?