(PC) Anderson v. McIntrny, et al., No. 2:2014cv00011 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/4/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 18 motion for leave to amend, as moot, and DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Assigned and Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR ANDERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-0011 CKD P v. ORDER AND McINTRNY, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief 17 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 24, 2014, plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 19 (“SAC”) was dismissed with thirty days’ leave to amend. (ECF No. 17.) On May 27, 2014, 20 plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, “and alternatively to file the 21 attached pleading as an amendment to [the] original.” Plaintiff’s motion includes additional 22 allegations. (ECF No. 18.) The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 25 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 ///// 1 Here, plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint is moot, as he was previously 1 2 granted leave to amend. Plaintiff has not filed a stand-alone Third Amended Complaint within 3 thirty days of the April 24, 2014 order, as directed. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff intends to 4 supplement the SAC with the “attached pleading,” his allegations do not state a cognizable claim. 5 Even if plaintiff were to file a Fourth Amended Complaint including these allegations along with 6 his previous allegations, the result would be dismissal. See Local Rule 220 (requiring an 7 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading). Because it 8 appears that another round of amendment would be futile, the undersigned will recommend that 9 this action be dismissed. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 17) is denied as moot; and 12 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 13 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a 14 claim. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 18 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 19 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 20 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 21 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 Dated: June 4, 2014 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 2 / ande0011.tac 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.
