Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00689-1/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

JAKAN CHAMEL MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0689- MJS (PC)

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION

(ECF No. 7)

FOURTEEN DAY 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. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other parties have appeared in this action.

On August 19, 2016, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it 

stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Bonffil, Clark, 

Souvannakham, Pinedo, and Ryan. Plaintiff was informed that he could proceed on the 

complaint as screened or file an amended complaint. 

Pending now is Plaintiff’s “motion to withdraw complaint.” (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff 

does not elaborate on the nature of his request. It may be that he wants to dismiss the

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) or that he wishes to amend the 

Case 1:16-cv-00689-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 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

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or even that he wants to 

dismiss all but the above-referenced cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this 

Order Plaintiff file a notice clarifying the nature and objective of this motion; he should 

simply state what it is he wants to accomplish with the motion. If Plaintiff does not 

comply with this Order, the Court will construe his motion as one for dismissal pursuant 

to Rule 41(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00689-MJS Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2