Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00099-2/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

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

ERIC K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIF. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00099-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 10, 13)

Plaintiff Eric K’napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

January 22, 2013. On December 1, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 

and 18. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court provided Plaintiff with instructions regarding 

compliance with Rule 8 and 18, and granted Plaintiff thirty days within which to amend. 

On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the screening order. On February 5, 

2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration, along with his pending petition for 

writ of mandamus, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file his amended complaint. 

On February 17, 2015, citing to WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 

1997) (en banc), Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent not to amend in compliance with the 

screening order. Plaintiff asks the Court to serve his initial complaint, rescreen his complaint or 

render a further determination so that Plaintiff may appeal. The Court declines to serve or 

Case 1:13-cv-00099-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

rescreen the dismissed complaint. Therefore, the Court construes the notice as Plaintiff’s 

decision to exercise his right to stand on his pleading by notifying the Court that he does not 

intend to file an amended complaint. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (9th 

Cir. 2004). In such a situation, the Court is constrained to accept Plaintiff’s election and dismiss 

the action. Id. at 1064.

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED for failure to comply with 

Rules 8 and 18, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment. Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00099-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 2