Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06187-8/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

TIMOTHY BUFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PAROLE AGENT MOUNTS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 02-6187 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO FILE FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Docs 56, 60.

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On March 13, 2006, this court issued Findings and

Recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s third amended complaint proceed on the Fourth

Amendment and retaliation claims against defendants Mounts, Worley and Gipson only. On March

9, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to file a fourth amended complaint. On March 28, 2006, defendants

filed a motion to strike the fourth amended complaint on the grounds that the Court has already

screened out the claims plaintiff seeks to add.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a

party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). In this case, plaintiff has

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 64 Filed 04/27/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

previously amended and a responsive pleading has been served. Therefore, plaintiff may not file an

amended complaint without leave of the court.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s third amended complaint and proposed fourth amended

complaint and the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims are the same in both complaints. As

plaintiff is aware, this court has recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for Denial of Access to

the Courts, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress. Plaintiff sets for no argument or justification explaining his attempt to amend to add these

claims which the court has found to be without merit. Plaintiff has been warned about this type of

maneuvering in other cases in this court. Indeed, an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not

be imposed upon plaintiff for acting in bad faith has been issued by the Honorable Magistrate Judge

Snyder in Buford v. Wasco State Prison CV 01-5192 REC SMS P. In that case, plaintiff also filed a

motion to amend to add claims which were already dismissed by the Court. The Court stated, “As

plaintiff has demonstrated in this action and in case number CV F 00-6496 REC SMS P Buford v.

Vang, plaintiff is disinclined to accept the rulings of this court that do not go in his favor, even in the

absence of a sound basis for challenging the orders.”

In light of this court’s prior recommendation dismissing the very claims plaintiff seeks to

include in his proposed fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff’s request to file a fourth amended

complaint which contains claims this court has already screened out is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff

is warned that further attempts to circumvent this court’s orders will result in the issuance of an order

to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for acting in bad faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06187-OWW-DLB Document 64 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2