Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01292/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01292-7/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

DARIUS SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01292-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

OBJECTIONS

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SCAN PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT TO MAKE THE RECORD

COMPLETE, AND RETURN THE PROPOSED

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff Darius Sims (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2007, the undersigned

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending this action proceed on plaintiff’s second

amended complaint, filed July 10, 2006, against defendants Resa, Baker, and Doe under section 1983

for violation of the Eighth Amendment; plaintiff’s due process claim based on the deprivation of his

property be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and defendants Cobbs, Martinez,

Wadkins, and Prud’homme be dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any

claims against them. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff did not file a timely Objection and on May 11, 2007, the

Honorable Anthony W. Ishii adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. (Doc. 16.) On 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01292-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 05/18/07 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 Plaintiff incorrectly describes the proposed amended complaint as a second amended complaint. Plaintiff 1

already filed a second amended complaint on July 10, 2006.

2

May 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and objections

late. (Doc. 17.) 1

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file objections shall be denied given that the Findings and

Recommendations was already adopted by Judge Ishii. Plaintiff had more than two months within

which to file objections or a proper request for an extension of time. Plaintiff also had not one but

two previous opportunities to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint, submitted with his motion, sets forth the same

claim against the same defendants that the court is allowing to proceed forward. It serves no purpose

to allow plaintiff to file a third amended complaint that sets forth the same Eighth Amendment claim

against the same three defendants that the court already found to be cognizable in the second

amended complaint. To the extent that plaintiff misunderstood the Findings and Recommendations

and believes the undersigned recommended that this entire action be dismissed for failure to state

a claim, that is incorrect. This action will be proceeding against defendants Resa, Baker, and Doe

for failing to protect plaintiff from inmate Rivas, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and objections late,

filed May 15, 2007, is DENIED; and

2. The Clerk’s Office shall scan the proposed third amended complaint, lodged May 15,

2007, to make the record complete, and shall return the proposed third amended

complaint and objections to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01292-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2