Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01799-12/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

ANDREW CEJAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1799 LKK GGH P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The court

construes the amended complaint to contain a motion for leave to proceed on this amended

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

This action was originally filed on September 8, 2005, as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. On October 11, 2005, the court construed this action as a civil rights action and

granted plaintiff thirty days to file a complaint. On October 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for

reconsideration of this order, which the district court denied on January 11, 2006.

On April 4, 2006, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file a complaint. On

May 11, 2006, the court granted plaintiff a thirty day extension of time to file his complaint. On

June 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint. On June 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a 54 page (minus

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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

exhibits) amended complaint. On September 20, 2006, the court dismissed the amended

complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. On November 3, 2006, the court

granted plaintiff a twenty day extension of time to file the second amended complaint. 

Twenty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, on January 19, 2007, the court recommended that this action be dismissed. On

February 15, 2007, plaintiff filed objections attached to which was an amended complaint.

On May 30, 2007, the court issued an order finding that the February 15, 2007,

amended complaint stated a colorable retaliation claim against defendant Oreschak. The court

ordered plaintiff to return the forms necessary to serve defendant Oreschak within thirty days. 

The court separately recommended that the remaining claims be dismissed as not colorable.

On June 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time in which he stated

that he was also requesting permission to amend his claims. On July 3, 2007, the court denied

this request because it was not accompanied by an amended complaint. The court also observed

that because it had already spent considerable time screening the previous complaints, any further

requests to amend would most likely be denied. The court also granted plaintiff thirty days to file

his objections to the May 30, 2007, findings and recommendations and to return the forms

necessary to effect service of defendant Oreschak.

On August 23, 2007, plaintiff filed objections as well as a 44 page amended

complaint. In his objections, also filed August 23, 2007, plaintiff states that the amended

complaint adds his name to the retaliation claim against defendants Margetti and Oreschak and

adds other claims. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice

so requires.” Fed. R Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would

cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay. 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

The factual allegations in the February 15, 2007, amended complaint are not

substantially different from those contained in the August 23, 2007, amended complaint. The

August 23, 2007, amended complaint also includes legal claims which the court recommended

be dismissed as not colorable in the May 30, 2007, findings and recommendations. The August

23, 2007, amended complaint also states that it is being brought as a class action. The court has

separately construed the August 23, 2007, amended complaint to contain a request to proceed as

a class action and recommended that this request be denied.

Plaintiff’s request to proceed on the August 23, 2007, amended complaint is

denied as futile because this amended complaint contains many of the claims found not colorable

in the May 30, 2007, findings and recommendations. Moreover, as discussed above, the court

has already spent considerable time reviewing the previous amended complaints. Further court

time spent combing through the August 23, 2007, amended complaint would cause undue delay

of the resolution of this action. As discussed above, this action was originally filed

approximately two years ago. Consideration of additional proposed amended complaints is not

warranted. Plaintiff has already had ample opportunity to cure the pleading defects discussed in

previous orders. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed on the amended complaint filed August 23, 2007,

is denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, one summons, an

instruction sheet.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Oreschak; and 

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed February 15, 2007. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 10/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cej1799.den

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 5
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CEJAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1799 LKK GGH P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 10/03/07 Page 5 of 5