Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05397-3/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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAUMLER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5397 OWW SMS P 

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOTION TO WITHDRAW

FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 49) 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW FIFTH AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Doc. 49) 

ORDER STRIKING FIFTH AMENDED

COMPLAINT FROM RECORD (Doc. 49) 

Christopher Lee Jenkins (“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 filed the instant action on April 16, 2002. On August 12, 2002, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff moved to submit Second Amended Complaint and lodged the

complaint on January 9, 2003. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and the Second Amended

Complaint was filed on April 2, 2003. Also on April 2, 2003, the Court dismissed the Second

Amended Complaint with leave to amend. A Third Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiff

on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff moved to amend the Third Amended Complaint on September 2,

2003. The request was granted on November 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended

Complaint. 

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 08/02/06 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

On March 9, 2005, the Court dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to

amend and informed Plaintiff that he could file a Fifth Amended Complaint curing the defects

outlined by the Court, or inform the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims found

cognizable and dismiss those not cognizable. 

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a pleading

titled “Motion to Dismiss on June 20, 2005, that informed the Court that he did not wish to file a

Sixth Amended Complaint. 

On July 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion informing the Court that he wished to proceed

on the retaliation claim against Defendant Baumler which the Court found cognizable in the

Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also stated that he wished to dismiss all claims against all

other Defendants and also wished the Court to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint altogether. 

In light of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to dismiss is construed as a Request to withdraw the Fifth

Amended Complaint and such request is GRANTED; 

2. The Fifth Amended Complaint is ordered STRICKEN from the Record in light of

the withdrawal; and 

3. This action will proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 27)

against Defendant Baumler on the allegation of retaliation. 

The will issue separate Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the remaining claims

and Defendants from the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05397-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2