Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01197/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01197-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL POWELL, TOMERY 

DARLING L.P.1, L.P. 2, BRITTNEY 

TEMPLE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES, SUPERIOR COURT OF 

CALIFOIRNIA PLACER COUNTY, 

COMM’R AMARA, COMM’R JAQUES, 

JUDGE GAZZANIGA, JUDGE GINI, 

JUDGE PINESCHI, ASGN. JUDGE 

McLEAN, and Doe Attorneys 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-CV-01197 TLN GGH 

AMENDED ORDER 

 On August 9, 2016, this court issued an Order granting plaintiff Michael Powell IFP 

status. ECF No. 5. In that Order the court also directed that plaintiff was to file an amended 

complaint within 45 days of the Order, and gave him instructions how to comport the amended 

pleading with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Order further, 

inadvertently directed the Marshall to serve the named defendants with the Complaint within 60 

days of the Order. That element of the Order is hereby rescinded. 

 Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint as Ordered, but on September 9 he filed a 

document labeled “Motion for Injunction,” ECF No.10, although there is no operative complaint 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 11 Filed 09/15/16 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

in the file. That “Motion” in no way complies with the requirements of Eastern District of 

California Local Rule No. 230 which addresses the procedure for bringing matters to the courts 

Civil Motion calendar. It will not, therefore, be addressed by the Court. The plaintiff can get 

copies of the Local Rules at the office of the Clerk of the Court at 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 

95814, and should do so before proceeding further. 

 Plaintiff is reminded that he must file an amended complaint no later than September 30, 

2016, which follows the directions given in the court’s August 9, 2016 Order. If no such 

amended complaint is filed, plaintiff is warned that they court may dismiss his action, with 

prejudice, for failure to prosecute his claims. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint no later than September 30, 2016; 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve the Marshal with this Order to give notice that 

the direction to serve summons has been withdrawn at this time; it will be reinstated if and when 

a cognizable complaint is filed. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-01197-TLN-GGH Document 11 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2