Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00802/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00802-7/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 

ROBERT ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

F. FOULK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0802 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This action was dismissed without prejudice on November 9, 2015, after plaintiff 

failed to file a third amended complaint. ECF No. 18. The court now has before it plaintiff’s 

third amended complaint, filed November 18, 2015.1

 ECF No. 20. 

 On August 5, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint and 

dismissed it with leave to amend. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff was given thirty days from the filing of 

the screening order to file a third amended complaint. Id. On September 24, 2015, the court 

issued an order finding that plaintiff had failed to file a third amended complaint within the thirty 

day period. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff was advised that he had an additional thirty days to file his 

third amended complaint and that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his case. Id. On 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-00802-AC Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 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

November 9, 2015, the court found that plaintiff had again failed to file an amended complaint 

within the time provided or otherwise respond to the court’s orders. ECF No. 18. This action 

was therefore dismissed without prejudice. Id. Final judgment was entered on November 9, 

2015. ECF No. 19. On November 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. ECF No. 

20. 

 The third amended complaint filed by plaintiff neither offers an explanation for its 

untimeliness nor addresses the Heck2 bar outlined in the August 5, 2015 screening order. Plaintiff 

has provided no basis for relief for judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

plaintiff’s third amended complaint will be disregarded and this action shall remain closed. 

DATED: November 30, 2015 

 

2

 See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

Case 2:14-cv-00802-AC Document 21 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2