Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01121-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01121-GSA-PC 

ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FILED JULY 1, 2010

(Docs. 59, 60.)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO CHOOSE

ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO OPTIONS:

(1) PROCEED ONLY

AGAINST DEFENDANT

BARRON FOR

RETALIATION

OR

(2) FILE A THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO NOTIFY

THE COURT OR FILE A THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Howard Young (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 2, 2007. 

(Doc. 1.) 

On June 21, 2010, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either (1) file a third

amended complaint, or (2) notify the court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant

1

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 66 Filed 07/12/10 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

27

28

Barron on the retaliation claim. (Doc. 55.) On July 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to

immediately proceed with service of process, and a motion for extension of time to file a third

amended complaint. (Docs. 59, 60.) Plaintiff may not select both of these options. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions filed on July 1, 2010 are RESOLVED;

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required to

either:

(1) Notify the court that he is willing to proceed only against defendant

Barron on the retaliation claim; OR

(2) File a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified

by the court in the order issued on June 21, 2010; 

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01121-AWI-GSA Document 66 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2