Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00498-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON THORNTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD L. GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0498-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER 

(1) VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS;

(2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND

(3) GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

 (ECF NOS. 22, 24)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) was 

screened and found to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

Case 1:16-cv-00498-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

against Defendant Grissom and an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against 

Defendant Cruz. (ECF No. 18.) The Court concluded that all other claims and 

Defendants were subject to dismissal. Plaintiff was then directed to file a notice of his 

willingness to proceed on the pleading as screened or to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. 

On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on the 

First Amended Complaint as screened. (ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, the undersigned 

issued Findings and Recommendations to that effect on November 8, 2016, 

recommending that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on the cognizable claims asserted 

in the First Amended Complaint and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed

with prejudice. (ECF No. 22.) The following day, on November 9, 2016, the undersigned 

denied three of Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.)

Plaintiff has now filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 

24.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint and an extension of time 

to file a motion for reconsideration of the November 9, 2016, order denying his requests 

for appointment of counsel.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The November 8, 2016, Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 22) are 

VACATED;

2. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days from the 

date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading, the Court will 

presume that Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the First Amended Complaint as 

screened and will therefore re-issue the November 8, 2016, Findings and 

Recommendations; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Within fourteen days

Case 1:16-cv-00498-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a motion for reconsideration of 

the November 9, 2016, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of 

Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00498-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 3