Hernandez v. Smith et al
Filing
11
ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 9 MOTION to File Amended Complaint as Moot and REQUIRING Plaintiff to Either File Amended Complaint or Notify Court of Willingness to Proceed Only Against Defendant R. D. Smith Within Thirty days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/29/2010. Amended Complaint or Notice due by 5/3/2010. (Bradley, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Raul Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 11, 2009. Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, brings this action against dentists T. Smith, R. D. Smith, and L. Kirk whom he was treated by at Avenal State Prison, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On December 2, 2009, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and an order issued for Plaintiff to choose and advise whether he wished to attempt to cure the identified deficiencies in his claims via filing an amended compliant, or if he wished to proceed on his claims against Defendant R. D. Smith as those were the only claims found cognizable therein. (Doc. 8.) On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. 9.) Since the prior Order of this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (if he choose to attempt to cure the defects in various of his claims rather than simply proceeding on the one 1 v. T. SMITH, et al., Defendants. RAUL HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00828-OWW-GSA PC ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT R. D. SMITH WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 9)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
cognizable claim), Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is moot. Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint sets out a number of factual allegations such that Plaintiff might have intended the document he titled "Motion to Amend Plaintiff Complaint" to function as a first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) If Plaintiff intended for his "Motion to Amend Plaintiff Complaint" to function as a first amended complaint, so as to remove any ambiguity, he must refile it under the title "First Amended Complaint." Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend Plaintiff complaint, filed December 31, 2009 is DENIED as moot; 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either: a. File a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies previously identified by the Court; or b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and is willing to proceed only on his claim that was previously identified as cognizable against Defendant R. D. Smith; and 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij
March 29, 2010
/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
]]>
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?
