Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940-2/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

WILLIE BRIDGES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0940 DAD P

vs.

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the docket in this case, the court finds that there appears to be

some confusion with regard to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and scheduling deadlines

set by the court. Accordingly, the court will clarify the status of this case with this order. 

On November 2, 2009, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and

dismissed it with leave to file a second amended complaint. On November 4, 2009, without the

benefit of the court’s order, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,

together with a proposed second amended complaint dated October 27, 2009. On November 12,

2009, plaintiff filed an affidavit in which he explained that he recently received the court’s

screening order and would like an extension of time up to and including February 2, 2010, to file

a new second amended complaint. On December 2, 2009, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 22 Filed 02/17/10 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

2

leave to file a second amended complaint as moot, disregarded plaintiff’s proposed second

amended complaint, granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a new second

amended complaint, and ordered him to file a second amended complaint on or before February

2, 2010. On January 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a request for status, and the Clerk of the Court sent

him a copy of the docket in this action and mistakenly indicated to him that the court had

received plaintiff’s second amended complaint when, in fact, it had not. Presumably, plaintiff

has failed to timely file a second amended complaint as a result of this confusion caused by the

Clerk of the Court’s erroneous response to his request for status. 

Given these circumstances, the court will grant plaintiff an additional thirty days

to file a second amended complaint that complies with the court’s November 2, 2009 screening

order. The court will also direct the Clerk of the Court to provide plaintiff with a copy of that 

screening order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the court’s November 2, 2009 screening order as

well as the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the

Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to

this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure to file a second amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed without prejudice; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s

November 2, 2009 screening order (Doc. No. 11). 

DATED: February 16, 2010.

DAD:9

brid0940.36amc(2)

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 22 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2