Singleton v. Pekarek et al

Filing 17

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/17/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, 13 14 No. C-11-5556 TEH (PR) ALTON SINGLETON, v. D. PEKAREK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner 19 incarcerated at California State Prison - Sacramento in Represa, 20 California, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 21 § 1983. 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 23 was housed at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), SQSP prison 24 officials violated his constitutional rights. 25 April 17, 2012, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 26 identify which defendants proximately caused him to suffer a 90-day 27 assessment, failed to set forth specific facts as to how each 28 individual defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a The Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint Plaintiff asserted that while he In its Order dated 1 federally-protected right, and improperly joined unrelated claims 2 against unrelated defendants. 3 therefore dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to cure these 4 pleading deficiencies. 5 cure the pleading deficiencies, or to suffer dismissal of the 6 action. 7 must “state clearly and succinctly how each and every Defendant is 8 alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federally protected rights” and 9 informed him that the amended complaint would supersede the original 10 See Doc. #13 at 5. The Court The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to The Court instructed Plaintiff that his amended complaint complaint. 11 Id. at 6. On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Court 12 Ordered First Amended Complaint,” and stated, “I just want to keep 13 my complaint on Officer D. Pekarek for excessive force and drop all 14 other claims until further notice.” 15 the Court that he was on lockdown and did not have the ability to 16 stay in contact with the Court. 17 extension of time to obtain help in researching his case. 18 Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint fails to state how D. 19 Pekarek violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. 20 Order dated May 23, 2012, the Court informed Plaintiff that his 21 proposed first amended complaint was deficient because it failed to 22 state how D. Pekarek violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected 23 rights. 24 deficiency and sua sponte granted Plaintiff an extension of time to 25 June 18, 2012, to file another proposed first amended complaint. 26 Id. at 2. See Doc. #16. Id. He also informed Plaintiff requested an Id. In its The Court instructed him how to correct the 27 28 See Doc. #14. 2 1 The deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not filed a 2 first amended complaint. 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 5 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions as moot and close the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 DATED 07/17/2012 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Singleton-11-5556-dismissal-complaint.wpd 26 27 28 3

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?