Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02454/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02454-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL GRANT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2454 LKK JFM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The sole remaining defendants in this action are County of Sacramento, and Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Deputies Roque, Willis and Crosby. The sole claims remaining in this action

are plaintiff’s two claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, which occurred

on November 20, 2002 and during his detention in the county jail, and his claims of false arrest

and excessive force by defendant Deputy Roque which allegedly occurred on November 21,

2002.

Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint is presently

calendared for hearing on October 13, 2005 . Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the court has

determined that the matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review

of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor,

THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Case 2:03-cv-02454-LKK -JFM Document 60 Filed 10/12/05 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

2

On April 14, 2005, plaintiff was granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint. 

However, said leave was limited to specific claims and defendants. Specifically, plaintiff was

directed to limit his claims to the two claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs, which occurred on November 20, 2002 and during his detention in the county jail, and his

claims of false arrest and excessive force by defendant Deputy Roque which allegedly occurred

on November 21, 2002. In addition, plaintiff was directed not to renew his claims against

defendants Chetner, Zuniga, County of Sacramento, or Clerks Macias, Cafaro and Crescenti.

On August 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint in which he

attempts to litigate claims previously resolved herein and in which he attempts to add new claims

and new defendants without leave of court. 

Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition to defendants’ motion. In addition,

plaintiff has failed to comply with this court’s April 14, 2005 order. Because plaintiff has

included claims which this court previously denied (see orders filed April 14, 2005 and May 11,

2004), defendants’ motion is well taken. The court will dismiss plaintiff’s fourth amended

complaint. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be granted one final opportunity in which to

file a fifth amended complaint that complies with the constraints set forth in this court’s April 14,

2005 order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of October 13, 2005 on defendants’ motion to strike is

vacated.

2. Defendants’ September 8, 2005 motion to strike is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint is dismissed;

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

fifth amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the fifth amended complaint must bear

Case 2:03-cv-02454-LKK -JFM Document 60 Filed 10/12/05 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

3

the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Fifth Amended Complaint”; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the fifth amended complaint; failure to file a fifth

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

5. Plaintiff shall only include his two claims of deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs, which occurred on November 20, 2002 and during his detention in the

county jail, and his claims of false arrest and excessive force by defendant Deputy Roque which

allegedly occurred on November 21, 2002. Plaintiff is directed not to renew his claims

against defendants Chetner, Zuniga, County of Sacramento, or Clerks Macias, Cafaro and

Crescenti in the fifth amended complaint, nor to add any new defendants or new claims not set

forth within this paragraph.

DATED: October 11, 2005.

/001; gran2454.lta4

Case 2:03-cv-02454-LKK -JFM Document 60 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 3