Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01407-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE SWEARINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1407 GEB KJM P

vs.

DR. WENDELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Wedell, Duc and Duru (defendants) have filed a

“motion for a more definite statement” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). In their

motion, defendants make two requests.

First, defendants ask that the court order plaintiff to provide more information so

they can identify defendant Williams. On April 15, 2008, process directed to defendant

Williams was returned unserved. In a separate order, the court will order plaintiff to provide

more information to the court so that process may be served upon defendant Williams. This

moots defendants’ request. 

Defendants also ask that plaintiff be ordered to serve defendants with “exhibits a

through x” referenced in plaintiff’s amended complaint. Those exhibits are not attached to the

Case 2:06-cv-01407-GEB-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/21/08 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

amended complaint the court ordered served upon defendants and therefore are not part of the

amended complaint. The court has already determined that the amended complaint states a claim

upon which relief can be granted against defendants, see October 23, 2007Order, and defendants

must respond to the amended complaint as it is. To the extent defendants seek documents

referenced in the amended complaint, they of course may do so through discovery.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Wedell, Duc and Duru’s motion for a more definite statement

(#18) is denied; and

2. Defendants Wedell, Duc and Duru shall file their response to plaintiff’s

amended complaint within twenty days. 

DATED: May 20, 2008. 

1

swea1407.mds

Case 2:06-cv-01407-GEB-CKD Document 25 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2