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)
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?