Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01502-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE LEE MOODY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLEN GRAVES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01502-AWI-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF DOCUMENT

13 AND A FORM COMPLAINT

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT,

DENYING REQUEST FOR RELIEF, AND

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN FORTYFIVE DAYS OR THIS ACTION WILL BE

DISMISSED

(Docs. 13 and 14)

Plaintiff Ronnie Lee Moody is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2009, the Court dismissed

Plaintiff ’s complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The docket reflects that Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint on October 29, 2009. However, upon review, the Court finds the document is a narrative

which does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Therefore, the Court shall strike it from

the record and have the Clerk’s Office provide Plaintiff with a form complaint and a copy of the

Court’s screening order. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the form provided within

forty-five days.

On November 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a request seeking to have the undersigned transfer his

parole from Modesto to Marin County or San Francisco. The Court cannot order the relief sought

1

Case 1:09-cv-01502-AWI -SKO Document 18 Filed 02/10/10 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

by Plaintiff. Until and unless Plaintiff files a complaint stating a claim for relief under federal law,

the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff relief. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). Further, assuming Plaintiff will be able to amend his

excessive force claim so that it states a claim under section 1983, the Court cannot intervene in his

parole conditions because that form of relief is not sufficiently related to the underlying claim to

confer the necessary jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Id.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 29, 2009, is STRICKEN from the

record for failure to comply with Rule 8(a);

2. Plaintiff’s request for an ordering transferring his parole is DENIED for lack of

jurisdiction;

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form and a copy of the screening

order filed on September 23, 2009; 

4. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

an amended complaint; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within forty-five days, this action will

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01502-AWI -SKO Document 18 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2