Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01380-5/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

SHAWN ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRIS KRPAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01380-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER REGARDING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF NO. 16)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY RESPONSE 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff 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 Nos. 4 & 14.) 

Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he 

was given leave to amend (ECF No. 5.) On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) On October 27, 2014, the Court struck Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint because it was unsigned. (ECF No. 10.) The Court instructed 

Plaintiff to file a signed amended pleading within thirty days. (Id.) The Court also noted 

that the unsigned first amended complaint was substantively deficient, advised Plaintiff 

of the legal standards applicable to what appeared to be Plaintiff’s claims, and instructed 

Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies in his amended pleading. (Id.)

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff again filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 

14.) On January 29, 2015, the Court again struck Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

Case 1:14-cv-01380-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 02/11/15 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

because it was unsigned, and again noted that the unsigned first amended complaint 

was substantively deficient. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed amended 

pleading, curing the noted deficiencies, within thirty days. (Id.)

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a signed first amended complaint. (ECF No. 

16.) The signed first amended complaint is dated January 28, 2015, one day prior to the 

Court’s most recent screening order. The signed first amended complaint appears to be 

nearly identical to the unsigned complaints the Court previously found to be deficient. 

(See ECF Nos. 9 & 14.)

Plaintiff seemingly mailed his signed first amended complaint prior to receiving the 

Court’s most recent screening order. Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff an 

opportunity to withdraw the complaint if he wishes, and to file a signed amended 

complaint that comports with the Court’s screening order. If Plaintiff instead chooses to 

proceed with screening of the already-filed February 2, 2015 amended complaint, and 

the allegations are found to be deficient for reasons stated in the Court's prior screening 

order, the February 2, 2015 amended complaint may be dismissed without further leave 

to amend. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to notify the Court within fourteen 

(14) days whether he will withdraw the February 2, 2015 first amended complaint, or 

wishes to proceed with screening of that complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to 

this order, the Court will proceed with screening of the February 2, 2015 first amended 

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01380-AWI-JDP Document 17 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 2