Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01488/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01488-2/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

JOEL P. WHITNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1488 FCD GGH P

vs.

C/O SIMONSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the original complaint. On December 29, 2006,

plaintiff filed a request for leave to file an amended complaint and a proposed amended

complaint. For the following reasons, this request is denied.

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by his cellmate,

inmate Thompson. Plaintiff reported this incident to defendants Simonson, Baker and Mesa, and

requested a cell change. Defendants told plaintiff to fill out a cell move slip rather than

immediately moving him. Inmate Thompson later assaulted and raped plaintiff.

While the amended complaint alleges that defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment rights by failing to protect him from inmate Thompson, it contains no specific

allegations to support this claim. The amended complaint does not contain the factual allegations

Case 2:06-cv-01488-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 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

2

that are in the original complaint, as described above. For this reason, the court does not find

that the amended complaint states a colorable claim for relief. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.

On January 29, 2007, defendants filed a request for an extension of time to file a

response to the original complaint. Good cause appearing, this request is granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 29, 2006, request for leave to file an amended complaint

is denied;

2. Defendants’ January 29, 2007, request for extension of time is granted;

defendants’ response to the complaint is due on or before February 28, 2007.

DATED: 2/21/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

whit1488.ame

Case 2:06-cv-01488-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2