Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES BONTY, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5511 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY AND POSTPONEMENT 

OF CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT 

vs.

R. INDERMILL, et al.,

[Docs. 29, 30, 36]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 31, 2004. Service was ordered and on December

14, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. On December 23, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to postpone consideration of defendants’

motion to dismiss and a motion to conduct discovery. On January 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to file an amended complaint, which defendants initially opposed. See Document No. 41 filed

February 3, 2005. Plaintiff lodged a proposed amended complaint on February 18, 2005. On April 12,

2005, defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion to dismiss filed December 14, 2004 and

a request that the Court screen the amended complaint. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 49 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, it appears that defendants do not oppose the filing of the amended

complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to file the amended complaint lodged February 18, 2005. Plaintiff’s motions to postpone

consideration of the first motion to dismiss and motion for discovery are DENIED as MOOT. The Court

will proceed to rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on April 12, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 49 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 2