Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION

(ECF No. 17)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Edward Terran Furnace, a.k.a. Asar Tauf Shakanasa, is a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1).

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend on January 

21, 2015. (ECF 15). Before receiving the screening order, however, Plaintiff submitted 

an amended complaint. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification. 

(ECF No. 17), asking the Court to verify that it received his amended complaint and to 

clarify whether it “still want[s] him to further amend” his complaint.

The Court verifies that Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on January 26, 

2015. (ECF No. 16). However, the Court leaves to Plaintiff to decide whether he wishes 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 02/09/15 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

to proceed with screening of the January 26 amended complaint or instead to withdraw it 

and file a new amended complaint, taking into consideration the Court’s January 21 

screening order. Plaintiff is advised that if he decides to proceed with screening of the 

already-filed January 26 amended complaint, and the allegations are found to be 

deficient for reasons stated in the Court's prior screening order, the January 26 amended 

complaint may be dismissed without further leave to amend. 

The Court gives Plaintiff fourteen (14) days to notify the court of his decision.

For the foregoing reasons and in the foregoing way, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Clarification is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 2