Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00261-2/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

JOSE GUADALUPE DE HARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEVIN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 261 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. 12.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TIME TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Jose Guadalupe De Haro (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 22, 2006, this Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

sought an extension of time on June 13, 2006, to file his Amended Complaint. However,

instead, he filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Leave to Amend and To Exhaust Administrative

State Remedies. . .” In this pleading, Plaintiff states that he wishes permission to amend his

Complaint to include new Defendants and thereby exhaust his administrative state remedies. 

Based on Plaintiff’s request, it is clear to the Court that he does not understand the Court’s Order

dismissing with leave to amend. 

In that Order, the Court informed Plaintiff what defects were in his original complaint. 

Plaintiff should refer to that Order to determine what he needs to correct in the Amended

Complaint. The Order dismissing with leave to amend did not contemplate that Plaintiff add new

defendants for Plaintiff did not even state cognizable claims for relief against those defendants

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 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

already named. 

Further, Plaintiff is mistaken that by amending his complaint, he exhausts state and

administrative remedies. While Plaintiff’s claims must be exhausted prior to initiating suit, he

must do so through the administrative process within the prison, and not this Court. The Court

will grant Plaintiff additional time to submit an Amended Complaint that cures the defects

outlined by the Court in the Order dismissing with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff fail to

amend his complaint or move to withdraw his complaint from consideration by this Court, the

Court will recommend that the action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend is DISREGARDED as Plaintiff has already been given

leave to amend his Complaint; and 

2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is due within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of this Order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

Recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim on

which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2