Pitts v. Espinda et al
Filing 66
EO: Before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for Clarification and Jury Trial Demand" [ECF No. 65]. Plaintiff expresses confusion regarding the status of a claim in the Second Amended Complaint related to the handling of his personal mail ( Count IV) [id. at 2]. In its August 18, 2021 Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint in Part and Directing Service, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Silva and Kami in Count IV based on the alleged opening of his legal mail and delay in sending his outgoing mail could proceed [ECF No. 25 at 17]. The Court further concluded that any claims in Count IV based on the delivery of Plaintiffs incoming personal mail were dismissed without prejudice [id.]. The Court also dismissed without prejudice any claims in Count IV against nine other "mailroom defendants" because Plaintiff did not link any of them to his claims [id. at 16 n.10]. In their Answer, Silva and Kami responded to Plaintiffs allegations base d on the alleged opening of his legal mail and delay in sending his outgoing mail [ECF No. 56 at 3]. To the extent Plaintiff has any further questions regarding the status of a particular claim, he is encouraged to read carefully this Courts previou s orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI) (afe)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF)
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.
