Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00195/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00195-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL RAY MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00195-NONE-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 20)

14-DAY DEADLINE

On October 19, 2020, the Court entered a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Doc. 13.) The Court granted 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, a voluntary dismissal, or notice that he wishes to 

stand on his complaint. The Court advised Plaintiff: “If the last option is chosen, the undersigned 

will issue findings and recommendations to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, plaintiff 

will have an opportunity to object, and the matter will be decided by a District Judge.” Id.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Election to Stand on the Complaint. (Doc. 14.) Accordingly, the 

Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss complaint with leave to amend within 

fourteen days. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff filed two pleadings captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” (Docs. 15, 16.) However, the pleadings did not present argument 

or point to any error by the magistrate judge. Therefore, on March 29, 2021, the Court entered an 

order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing the complaint with leave to amend

Case 1:20-cv-00195-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 06/09/21 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

within thirty days. (Doc. 19.)

After thirty days passed without the filing of a first amended complaint, the Court entered an 

order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a court order. (Doc. 20.) In the alternative, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first 

amended complaint within twenty-one days. Id.

On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 21.) In this 

response, Plaintiff states that he “indeed for a fact filed a first amended complaint in which was 

sent via U.S. Mail (proof of service) included dated 10/1/2020 and accepted by the Court Docket 

No. 16 as well as Docket No. 15.” (Doc. 21.) Despite this insistence by Plaintiff, a review of the 

docket reveals that he did not file a first amended complaint in this case. The Court notes, 

however, that Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on 10/1/2020 in an unrelated case, 

Mills v. Clarke, Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-HBK.

Because Plaintiff expresses his desire to proceed with this action, the Court will give 

Plaintiff one more opportunity to file a first amended complaint within 21 days of the date of 

service of this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a voluntary dismissal.

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the Court 

dismiss this case for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00195-JLT-CDB Document 22 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 2