Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MELVIN JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL A. TOZZI et al.,

Defendants.

1:05-CV-0148 OWW DLB

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STRIKE (DOC. 223) AND

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND/OR

TRIAL DATE (DOCS 222 & 226)

On May 1, 2006, the district court heard oral argument on a

variety of pending motions in this case, including Defendants’

motions to strike and to dismiss. The court indicated intent to

grant Plaintiff leave to amend with respect to his allegations

against Defendant Hollenback, but informed the parties that a

written order would be forthcoming. Before the issuance of any

written order, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint. (Doc.

221, filed May 4, 2006.) Defendant moved to strike the fourth

amended complaint on the ground that leave to amend had not yet

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 227 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

been granted. (Doc. 223, filed May 12, 2006). Plaintiff opposes

the motion to strike and has moved separately to set a scheduling

conference regarding the claims against defendant Hollenback.

(Docs. 222, 224, 225 & 226.) It is not necessary to hold oral

argument on any of these motions. 

Plaintiff has been previously warned that his practice of

filing amended complaints without leave to amend unnecessarily

confuses the docket and prevents the parties from receiving the

court’s analysis and decision on the pending motions addressing

the operative complaint. Plaintiff must wait for a written

decision and order on motions submitted for decision that

actually grants him leave before filing any amended complaint. 

To protect the integrity of the judicial process, Plaintiff’s

unauthorized fourth amended complaint must be stricken. 

The district court has expended considerable time and effort

on a memorandum decision (filed concurrently with this order),

which provides Plaintiff with a detailed explanation of

deficiencies in his previous complaints. Plaintiff should take

this reasoning into consideration when drafting his amended

complaint. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within

twenty (20) days following service of that memorandum decision.

To the extent that Plaintiff advances any issues for

decision in his separate motion to set a scheduling conference

(Doc. 222) and his “Statement regarding trial scheduling

conference and []projection of trial date” (Doc. 226), those

motions are DENIED AS PREMATURE. Plaintiff’s fourth amended

complaint has been stricken. Until Plaintiff properly files an

amended pleading, there are no claims in this case to set for

trial. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that

Defendant be given opportunity to challenge the amended pleading

by way of any motion authorized by Rule 12. Any proposals for a

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 227 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

trial schedule will be considered in due course. Alternatively,

if Defendant chooses not to challenge the amended pleading,

Defendant shall inform the court so that a scheduling conference

may be set.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

(1) Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s unauthorized

fourth amended complaint is GRANTED.

(2) Plaintiff’s motions regarding a scheduling conference

and trial schedule are DENIED AS PREMATURE.

(3) The hearing currently set for June 12, 2006 is ordered

off calendar.

 

SO ORDERED 

Dated: June 2, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________ 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 227 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3