Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed

February 23, 2006. For the following reasons, the second amended complaint is dismissed.

On November 2, 2005, the court issued an order and findings and

recommendations addressing the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Rhodes, Jett,

Prosper, Schroers, Shannon and Ceaglio. The court recommended that the claims against

defendants Prosper and Shannon be dismissed. The court dismissed with leave to amend

plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants that imposition of the R suffix caused plaintiff

to suffer from increased risk of safety. The court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate

that his increased risk of safety was caused by the R suffix. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 85 Filed 03/23/06 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

2

claims against defendants Ceaglio and Schroers because plaintiff had failed to link these

defendants to the alleged deprivations. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended

complaint.

Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly,

on January 19, 2006, the court recommended that the remaining claims against defendants

Rhodes, Jett, Schroers and Ceaglio be dismissed. Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file

objections but failed to do so.

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed the pending second amended complaint. The

second amended complaint is dismissed for two reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). First, the second

amended complaint is dismissed because it is untimely. Second, the second amended complaint

is dismissed because it does not cure the pleading defects discussed in the November 2, 2005,

order. The second amended complaint does not link plaintiff’s increased risk of safety to the R

suffix. The second amended complaint also fails to link defendants Ceaglio and Schroers to the

alleged deprivations. 

On March 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion. This motion is

premature because the court has recommended dismissal of the claims against defendants

Rhodes, Jett, Schroers and Ceaglio. This motion is also premature because a motion to dismiss

on behalf of the remaining defendants is pending.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed February 23, 2006, is dismissed;

2. Plaintiff’s March 2, 2006, summary judgment motion is vacated.

DATED: 3/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wh2276.den

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 85 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2