Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01762-2/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

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

LARRY CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. ESPINOSA, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-01762-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Larry Cruz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 1, 2013. On 

October 28, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and 

found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, Silva and Espinosa, but failed to state any other claims. The Court 

directed Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court that he did not wish 

to file an amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim within thirty days from the date of service. (ECF No. 6.) 

On December 9, 2014, after more than thirty days had passed and Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the Court’s order, the Court dismissed the action for failure to obey a court order. 

(ECF No. 7.) Judgment was entered the same date. (ECF No. 8.) 

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing 

this action. Plaintiff asserted that he did not receive a copy of the Court’s October 28, 2014 

screening order. (ECF No. 9.) On January 23, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for 

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

reconsideration, vacated entry of judgment and reopened this action. The Court also directed the 

Clerk of the Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s screening order issued on October 28, 

2014. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to either (1) file a first 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court or (2) notify the Court in 

writing that he does not wish to file a first amended complaint and he is willing to proceed only 

on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Dunn, Hiracheta, Silva and 

Espinosa. (ECF No. 10.) 

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to supplement the record to 

demonstrate that he received this Court’s October 28, 2014 screening order on January 22, 2015. 

Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 11.) As the 

Court has granted Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and reopened this action, Plaintiff’s 

request to supplement the record is unnecessary and is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01762-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 2