Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01686-6/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

SYNRICO RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. C. MARTIN, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

IN SUPPORT OF FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 33) 

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. This matter proceeds against Defendants Martin 

and Blattel on claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference. 

On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint. Defendants filed 

opposition on March 20, 2014. The Court denied the motion on March 31, 2014, without 

prejudice. The Court also identified deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion and advised what was 

necessary to file a proper motion.

On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in support of a first amended complaint. It 

appears in substance to be an untimely reply to the opposition to his March 17, 2014 

motion. It is denied for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 31, 2014 Order.

Even if the Court were to construe the instant motion as a request for 

reconsideration of the March 31,2014 Order, Plaintiff does not state any new or different 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 04/14/14 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

facts or circumstances which were not before the Court when it ruled on the March 17, 

2014 motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 

2008); Local Rule 230(j). 

If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended pleading, he may move the Court for 

permission to do so. He must file a proper motion and set forth the reasons he seeks relief 

and why he believes he is entitled to it. He should state what changes he purports to make 

by way of the new pleading, why they are important to his case, when he learned of the 

need to amend, whether he previously asserted the claims to be added and if so why the 

claims are not barred by previous screening orders and whether or not the proposed 

changes will prejudice the Defendants.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 

in support of a first amended complaint (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 2