(PC) Gomez v. Sanders, et al., No. 2:2013cv00480 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/23/2015. Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 28 Motion to file an Amended 12 Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff& #039;s 35 Second Amended Complaint is deemed TIMELY. Plaintiff's 30 34 Motions for Extension of Time to file Amended Complaint are DENIED as unnecessary. Defendants shall respond to Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of date of this Order. This matter is REFERRED BACK Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison for further proceedings. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gomez v. Sanders, et al. Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GOMEZ, 12 No. 2:13-cv-0480-GEB-CMK-P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SANDERS, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On March 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. However, apparently in lieu of objections, plaintiff filed a proposed second amended and a 24 belated opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff acknowledges the deficiencies in his 25 complaint and indicates no opposition to the motion to dismiss, but has requested leave to file an 26 amended complaint. While plaintiff’s second amended complaint was filed prematurely, filed 27 prior to the actual dismissal of his first amended complaint, leave to file an amended complaint 28 was recommended and will be granted. As such, defendants will be required to respond to the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 second amended complaint (Doc. 35) within 30 days of the date of this order. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 30, 2014, are adopted in full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) is granted; 7 3. Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. 28) is granted; 8 4. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 35) is considered timely filed; 9 5. Plaintiff’s motions for additional time to file an amended complaint (Docs. 30, 10 11 12 13 14 34) are denied as unnecessary; 6. Defendants shall respond to the second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and 7. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Dated: September 23, 2015 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
