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)

Download PDF
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?