Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00981-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAROYA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 981 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION (Doc. 13.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT 

 Carlos Hendon (“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 November 7, 2006, the Court

issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was granted thirty days

to submit an Amended Complaint or notify the Court of his intention to dismiss the action. 

On November 29, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court asking for clarification of

the Court’s Order. In this letter, Plaintiff states that the Court issued a similar order on April 14,

2006, but referenced a different case number, Case No. 05-CV-838-OWW-SMS-P. Plaintiff

submitted an Amended Complaint in that case. Plaintiff states that on November 6, 2006, the

Court issues an order in the same action but references Case No. 05-CV-981-AWI-SMS-P. 

Plaintiff states that it is unclear whether the Court intended to re-screen Plaintiff’s Complaint or

that the issuance of this order was a typographical error. 

According to the Court docket, the instant action was filed on August 1, 2005. It may be

the case that Plaintiff had intended to submit an Amended Complaint but did not reference his

Case 1:05-cv-00981-SMS Document 15 Filed 01/04/07 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

case number on it and the case was opened as a new case and assigned a new number. Perhaps

this is why Plaintiff states that the Court “re-screened” the same Complaint. However, the Court

does not review all of a Plaintiff’s actions together. Instead, each case is assigned its own unique

case number and is not necessarily assigned the same judges. According to the Court record,

Plaintiff has several open cases. It is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to manage and track his

individual cases. As stated above, the Court does not review all of a Plaintiff’s open cases

together thus, it is unaware of two actions are open based on the same Complaint. All

documents, including amended complaints, submitted by parties must reference the current case

number. Given that the Court expended time to screen the instant case and issue an Order

requiring Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, should Plaintiff wish to dismiss this action

because another action is pending based on the same previously filed Complaint, he should move

to do so as indicated in the Court’s Order dismissing the Complaint. The Court will grant

Plaintiff additional time to file such a motion if that is his intent. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The request for clarification is DISREGARDED; and 

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days to either move to dismiss this action as

duplicative of another pending action or file an Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff is reminded that all contact with the court concerning a case must be in pleading

form. Letters are generally not permitted and are not filed in the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00981-SMS Document 15 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2