Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, No. CIV S-06-1413-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are the following: (1) plaintiff’s third

motion for leave to further amend the complaint (Doc. 19); (2) plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment against unserved defendant Leslie (Doc. 25); and (3) defendants’ request for statutory

screening (Doc. 23). Also before the court are two proposed amended complaints (Docs. 20 and

24). 

In his motion for leave to further amend the complaint (Doc. 19), plaintiff asserts

that new defendants – Warden McDonald and Associate Warden Faulkner – enforce a nosmoking policy. It appears that the basis of plaintiff’s claim against these defendants is that, by

enforcing a no-smoking and no-tobacco policy in the prison, they are acting with deliberate

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 27 Filed 05/25/07 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

indifference to plaintiff’s smoking habit. This amendment is not necessary. In the first amended

complaint, upon which this action currently proceeds, plaintiff has named the supervisory

defendants allegedly responsible for the no-smoking policy. Therefore, the addition of other

supervisory defendants does not advance plaintiff’s case. In other words, the proposed

amendment is duplicative of claims already asserted in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to further amend the complaint will be denied. The proposed amended

complaints (Docs. 20 and 24), filed on March 26, 2007, and April 20, 2007, respectively, will be

stricken. This action proceeds on the first amended complaint filed on October 30. 2006. 

Because the court is not allowing further amendments to the complaint,

defendants’ request for statutory screening (Doc. 23) of the proposed amended complaints is

denied as unnecessary. The court has already screened the operative pleading – the October 30,

2006, first amended complaint – and determined that is appropriate for service on defendants

Runnels, Schwarzenegger, and Leslie. Defendants Runnels and Schwarzenegger have waived

service. Process directed to defendant Leslie has been returned unexecuted.

As to defendant Leslie, plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to enter

default against defendant because he is “hiding” and evading service. This, however, has not

been shown on the existing record. More to the point, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide

the United States Marshal with enough information to effect service of process. By separate

order issued herewith, the court instructs plaintiff regarding service of defendant Leslie. 

Because defendant Leslie has not been served, default is not appropriate at this time. Plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment (Doc. 25) is denied.

Finally, defendants Runnels and Schwarzenegger have requested additional time

within which to respond to the first amended complaint. Good cause appearing therefor, the

request will be granted. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 27 Filed 05/25/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to further amend the complaint (Doc. 19) is

denied;

2. The proposed amended complaints (Docs. 24 and 20) are stricken;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Leslie (Doc. 25)

is denied;

4. Defendants’ request for statutory screening (Doc. 23) is denied as

unnecessary;

5. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to the first

amended complaint is granted; and

6. Defendants Schwarzenegger and Runnels shall file a response to the first

amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 

DATED: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 27 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3