Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HASKY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01426-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

WITHDRAW AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS

HASKY AND BELTRAN OR FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 9)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Eddie Harris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 30, 2012. On March 28, 2013, the Court

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and ordered Plaintiff to either (1) file an amended complaint curing

the deficiencies identified or (2) notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only against

Defendants Hasky and Beltran, which would result in the dismissal of Defendant Turner.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2013. Given that the amended complaint

names only Defendants Hasky and Beltran and omits Defendant Turner, it appears that Plaintiff

agrees with proceeding only against Hasky and Beltran. However, instead of notifying the Court of

this election as directed, Plaintiff instead filed an amended complaint which is so brief that it no

longer states a claim against anyone. By omitting all of the facts set forth in the original complaint, 1

Plaintiff’s amended complaint no longer includes detail to support his claim that Defendants Hasky

The statement of claim in Plaintiff’s original complaint was more than twenty pages long. His current

1

statement of claim is only one paragraph.

1

Case 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/30/13 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

and Beltran acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to his safety, in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Hearns

v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is

ORDERED to either (1) withdraw his amended complaint and notify the Court of his willingness

to proceed on his original complaint against Defendants Hasky and Beltran only, or (2) file a second

amended complaint setting forth sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 2