Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00155-14/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

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00155-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF Nos. 55, 57, 58)

Plaintiff John Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second motion for leave to amend, along with a 

proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 54 & 55.) On April 14, 2022, the assigned Magistrate 

Judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending “that Plaintiff’s second 

motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 55) be DENIED” because this case is stayed and because 

Plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies noted by the Court in its previous denial of Plaintiff’s first 

motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 57 at 2-3.) The parties were provided fourteen (14) days to 

file objections to the findings and recommendations. Neither party objected. 

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 61 Filed 09/28/22 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

On May 2, 2022, instead of filing objections to the findings and recommendations, 

Plaintiff lodged a fourth proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 58.) The Court will not 

consider Plaintiff’s additional proposed amended complaint because the Court has advised 

Plaintiff on several occasions, including in the pending findings and recommendations (ECF No. 

31 at 2), that he needs to explain the changes he is attempting to make to his complaint. “As 

Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend suffers from many of the same defects as his prior 

motion,” (ECF No. 57 at 2-3), and as Plaintiff has now filed four proposed amended complaints 

without adequately explaining the changes he is attempting to make to the operative complaint, 

the Court again warns Plaintiff that unreasonable and frivolous filings may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 14, 2022 (ECF No. 57), are 

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 55) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 61 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2