Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00331/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00331-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

T. NORTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-00331-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST

(Doc. 11.)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, BOTH FILED ON 

MAY 16, 2014

(Docs. 9, 10.)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE NEW 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO COURT’S ORDER OF MAY 

9, 2014

(Doc. 8.)

I. BACKGROUND

John Edward Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (Doc. 1.) 

On March 13, 2012, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 6.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

Case 1:12-cv-00331-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/22/14 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

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 

The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on May 

9, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty 

days. (Doc. 8.) On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to amend the complaint, together 

with a First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 9, 10.) On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to 

dismiss the First Amended Complaint, without prejudice. (Doc. 11.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

Plaintiff explains that he submitted the First Amended Complaint to the court before he 

received the court’s order of May 9, 2014, and he now seeks to file a new First Amended 

Complaint in compliance with the instructions in the court’s order. 

Under these facts, the court finds good cause to strike the First Amended Complaint and 

Plaintiff’s request to amend, which were filed on May 16, 2014. When a document is stricken, 

it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any purpose. Plaintiff may now file a 

new First Amended Complaint in compliance with the court’s order of May 9, 2014.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request filed on May 19, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint, and the First Amended Complaint, 

both filed on May 16, 2014, are STRICKEN from the record; and

3. Plaintiff may now file a new First Amended Complaint in compliance with the 

court’s order of May 9, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00331-GSA Document 12 Filed 05/22/14 Page 2 of 2