Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00065/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00065-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0065 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 28, 2006, defendant Rohlfing filed a motion to dismiss. On

December 27, 2006, defendants Runnels, Clement, Sandham and Boican filed a motion to

dismiss. On December 27, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant Rohlfing’s motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss filed on December 27, 2006. 

Accordingly, on February 26, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within ten days for

his failure to file an opposition to this motion to dismiss.

On March 12, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order and a

motion for an extension of time to file an opposition. Plaintiff states that he did not receive the

December 27, 2006, motion to dismiss.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00065-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 04/04/07 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

2

On March 15, 2007, defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time. Defendants state that plaintiff did not receive the motion to

dismiss because it was not served at the proper address. On March 15, 2007, defendants re-filed

the motion to dismiss and served it on plaintiff at the correct address.

On March 27, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended

complaint. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to

evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Since

plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend must therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed December 27, 2006, is vacated;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint filed March 27, 2007, is denied;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an opposition

to the motion to dismiss filed March 15, 2007, by defendants Runnels, Clement, Sandham and

Boican.

DATED: 4/4/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

king65.ord

Case 2:06-cv-00065-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2