Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688-7/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

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05688-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DECLINING TO VACATE FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS

JUNCTURE, BUT GRANTING PLAINTIFF

THIRTY DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT

COMPLIES WITH THE COURT’S ORDER OF

APRIL 5, 2006

(Docs. 24 and 35) 

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“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 December 4, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action proceed

on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 12, 2006, against defendants Howard, Johnson,

Barker, Chappel, Papac, Meadors, and Winett for retaliation arising out of excessive body searches,

against defendants Winett, Meadors, Barker, and Woodley for retaliation arising out of the

confiscation of plaintiff’s kosher package, and against defendants Barker and Chappel for violation

of the Equal Protection Clause, but that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. On December

14, 2006, plaintiff filed an Objection in which he contends that due to confusion and grief following

the deaths of his son and grandson in a car accident, he inadvertently submitted the wrong statement

of claim. Plaintiff contends that an attorney assisted him with amending his claim, but he failed to

submit that amendment and requests leave to do so.

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 36 Filed 02/08/07 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

The Court has provided plaintiff with two opportunities to amend, and the Magistrate Judge

screened plaintiff’s most recent complaint despite the fact that plaintiff failed to comply with the

dictates of the order granting him leave to amend. (Docs. 9, 24, 34.) In light of the fact that plaintiff

alleges he erroneously submitted the wrong amended complaint, the Court will allow plaintiff one

opportunity to file the correct amended complaint. Plaintiff is specifically warned that if the

complaint does not comply with the dictates of the order filed on April 5, 2006, by setting forth

separate claims, the complaint will be stricken from the record. The Court will not for a fourth time

expend its resources screening a complaint not in compliance with the order.

At this juncture, the Court declines to vacate the Findings and Recommendations filed on

December 4, 2006. The Findings and Recommendations will be vacated if plaintiff files a third

amended complaint which complies with the Court’s order of April 5, 2006. If plaintiff does not file

a third amended complaint that complies with the Court’s order of April 5, 2006, the Findings and

Recommendations will be adopted and this action will proceed on plaintiff’s second amended

complaint only on those claims found to be cognizable by the Magistrate Judge on December 4,

2006.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within

which to file a third amended complaint that complies with the Court’s order of April

5, 2006; and

2. If plaintiff files a third amended complaint that complies with the order of April 5,

2006, the Findings and Recommendations filed on December 4, 2006, will be

vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 36 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2