Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01233/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01233-8/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- 08cv1233

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

GERALD L. MILLER, JR., CDCR #C-92075,Civil No. 08-1233 BTM (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING

DEFENDANTS EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 42]

vs.

O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N.; J.

AKANNO, 

Defendants.

On February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Change Pleadings in Second Amended

Complaint” which the Court construed as a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

See Feb. 24, 2010 Order at 1. In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to clarify some allegations in

his Second Amended Complaint, as well as modify some of his previously requested prayer for

relief. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1-3. Thus, the Court found it appropriate to issue a briefing schedule

so that Defendants may respond to this request.

Case 1:08-cv-01233-BTM-WMC Document 47 Filed 03/18/10 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 1

 A review of the Court’s docket indicates that notice of the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion was

electronically mailed to, among others, stephen.pass@doj.ca.gov.

-2- 08cv1233

Plaintiff filed an objection to the Court’s February 24, 2010 Order claiming that the Court

had already ruled on his request to file an Amended Complaint in December 2009. See Pl.’s

Obj. at 1. Plaintiff makes no mention of the request that he filed with this Court on February

22, 2010 which is clearly a new request to amend his Second Amended Complaint.

To further add to the confusion, Defendants filed a response to the Court’s February 24,

2010 Order in which they claim that they never received this motion. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 1-2.

In reviewing the proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s Motion, it does appear that Plaintiff did

not properly serve the Defendants with his Motion. However, Defendants did receive actual

notice through the Court’s electronic filing system that this Motion was filed.1

Given the confusion between the parties with respect to the Motion that was filed by

Plaintiff on February 22, 2010, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to notify the Court and Defendants

no later than March 29, 2010 whether he intends to withdraw his Motion [Doc. No. 42] or if he

wishes to proceed with his request to amend his Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff

chooses to proceed with his Motion, Defendants must file a response to this Motion [Doc. No.

42] by April 12, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-01233-BTM-WMC Document 47 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2