Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-23/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 84, 94, 98)

Plaintiff Sheldon Ray Newsome is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended 

complaint (Doc. No. 84) be denied because plaintiff filed the motion more than a year after the 

deadline for the filing of motions established by the scheduling order in this case had passed and 

plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. No. 98 at 2–3.) 

Moreover, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s proposed amendments would not be proper

in any event because plaintiff now seeks to add a new defendant and bring claims against that 

new defendant based “on unrelated actions taken approximately four years after the events at 

issue in this case.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff’s motion for 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 120 Filed 03/15/23 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

clarification “in light of the novel allegations in his proposed third amended complaint” be denied 

as having been rendered moot by the court’s denial of his motion for leave to file a third amended 

complaint. (Id. at 3–4.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 

5.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in 

which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2022 (Doc. No. 98) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. No. 84) is 

denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. No. 94) is denied as having been rendered 

moot by this order; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 120 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 2