Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01169/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01169-16/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 

MADERO POUNCIL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES TILTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-09-1169 LKK/CMK P 

ORDER 

This matter and all outstanding motions were stayed pending 

appointment of counsel for plaintiff. (Order, Apr. 2, 2013, ECF 

No. 45.) The court subsequently appointed attorney Alan J. 

Reinach to represent plaintiff. (Order, Apr. 25, 2013, ECF 

No. 46.) Now, good cause appearing, the motions stayed by the 

court’s April 2, 2013 order are resolved below. 

Before turning to these motions, the court will address one 

matter. Plaintiff’s status conference statement, filed in 

anticipation of the status conference currently set for November 

12, 2013, indicates that he intends to file an amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 60.) At this juncture, plaintiff may only amend the 

complaint with defendant’s written consent or by leave of court. 

Case 2:09-cv-01169-JAM-CMK Document 61 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 4
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 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, if defendants will not 

stipulate to an amendment,1 plaintiff should bring on a motion to 

amend. 

The court now turns to the pending motions. 

On February 27, 2013, defendant filed a request for 

clarification “regarding the cognizable claim in this lawsuit” 

and requested leave to file a second motion to dismiss “if the 

Court now recognizes claims other than the one identified in its 

screening order.” (Defendant’s Request for Clarification and for 

Leave to File Motion to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 41.) On March 22, 

2013, defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to 

respond to the complaint pending ruling on the motion for 

clarification. (ECF No. 43.) If plaintiff obtains leave to amend 

his complaint, whether by stipulation or court order, these 

pending motions may very well be mooted. Accordingly, they will 

be denied without prejudice. 

On March 21, 2013, plaintiff filed, pro se, a motion for 

preliminary injunction. As plaintiff is now represented by 

counsel, his pro se motion will also be denied without prejudice. 

Finally, in its April 2, 2013 Order, the court ordered that 

“[t]he referral of discovery to the Magistrate Judge remains in 

effect. The parties are DIRECTED to henceforth set all other law 

and motion practice for hearing before the undersigned.” (ECF 

No. 45.) Following issuance of this order, defendant filed a 

 1

 A review of the docket indicates that the U.S. Marshals 

Service was unable to serve defendant Warden Martel (ECF No. 16) 

If plaintiff intends to proceed against the Warden of the 

facility where he is currently incarcerated, the parties should 

also discuss whether counsel for defendants will represent this 

individual. 

Case 2:09-cv-01169-JAM-CMK Document 61 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 4
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 

consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison. 

(ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff, while proceeding pro se, previously 

consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 8.) 

Notwithstanding the consents filed herein, the matter will remain 

with the undersigned. See Local Rule 305(b).2

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as 

follows: 

[1] Defendant’s request for clarification of the claims 

raised in the original complaint and for leave to file a 

second motion to dismiss that complaint (ECF No. 41) is 

DENIED without prejudice. 

[2] Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to respond 

to the original complaint (ECF No. 43) is DENIED without 

prejudice to defendant’s right to respond to the operative 

complaint within the time set in the court’s scheduling 

order. 

[3] Plaintiff’s March 21, 2013 motion for preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 44) is DENIED without prejudice. 

[4] Within twenty-one (21) days of docketing of this order, 

plaintiff is DIRECTED to file either (a) a joint stipulation 

with defendant permitting him to amend his complaint, along 

with the amended complaint, or (b) a motion to amend the 

 

2 As noted above, defendant Warden Martel was never served, and 

therefore never filed a consent to the magistrate judge’s 

jurisdiction.

Case 2:09-cv-01169-JAM-CMK Document 61 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

complaint, along with a proposed amended complaint. 

[5] The status conference currently set for November 12, 

2013 at 3:00 p.m. is CONTINUED to February 3, 2014 at 1:30 

p.m. The parties are DIRECTED to file updated status reports 

no later than January 21, 2014. If plaintiff intends to 

proceed against Warden Martel (or any other individual who 

currently serves as Warden of the facility in which 

plaintiff is incarcerated), he is DIRECTED to serve that 

individual with process and a copy of this order no later 

than January 7, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 6, 2013. 

Case 2:09-cv-01169-JAM-CMK Document 61 Filed 11/07/13 Page 4 of 4