Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-6554 REC SMS P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

CLARIFY RE OBJECTIONS TO DISMISSAL

OF CLAIMS

(Doc. 20)

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 17, 2005, this court

issued an order requiring plaintiff to either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his

claims as identified by the court or notify the court that he did not wish to amend and wished to

proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable by the court. (Doc. 14.) On April 11, 2005,

plaintiff filed a notice stating that he did not wish to amend and wished to proceed on the claims

found to be cognizable by the court. (Doc. 15.) Based on plaintiff’s notice, the court issued an order

requiring plaintiff to fill out and submit summonses and USM-285 forms for service of process, and

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants.

(Docs. 16, 17.) Plaintiff returned to service documents on May 9, 2005. (Docs. 18, 19.) However,

on May 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Findings

and Recommendations. (Doc. 20.) 

This court offered plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the

deficiencies in his complaint, but plaintiff declined to do so. Because plaintiff declined to amend

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 21 Filed 05/24/05 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

2

and requested that the action proceed on his original complaint, the court is preparing to direct the

Marshal to initiate service. Plaintiff’s decision to object to the Findings and Recommendations is

inconsistent with plaintiff’s decision to forego amending and proceed only on those claims found

to be cognizable by the court. Plaintiff may not have it both ways by declining to amend and then

objecting to the dismissal of his claims. If plaintiff does not agree with the recommendation to

dismiss certain claims and defendants, this action shall not be allowed proceed on plaintiff’s original

complaint and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is required, by this order, to clarify

his intention and explain why, after notifying the court that he did not wish to amend and wished to

proceed on the claims found to be cognizable by the court, he now intends to object to the dismissal

of certain claims and defendants. Due to this issue, the court declines to issue the order at this time

directing the Marshal to initiate service of the original complaint.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

written response to this order clarifying his intention and explaining why, after

notifying the court that he did not wish to amend and wished to proceed on the claims

found to be cognizable by the court, he is now expressing his intention to file

objections to the dismissal of certain claims and defendants; and

2. The failure to obey this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 21 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2