Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01881/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01881-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SUSAN GORDON, a.k.a. SUSAN

CAIN-SMART,

No. CIV S-06-1881 DFL EFB PS

Plaintiff, 

vs.

BUTTE COUNTY, et al., ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS

TO DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

Defendants. AMEND

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to this court pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). By order dated September 12, 2006, this

court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). By

that same order, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court also screened plaintiff’s

complaint, and dismissed it with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint on October 6, 2006.

The undersigned reviewed the first amended complaint, and on December 5, 2006, issued

findings and recommendations recommending that defendant “Butte County District Attorney’s

Office (Mike Ramsey)” (Hereafter “Ramsey”) be dismissed from the action with prejudice on

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-01881-JAM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Those findings and recommendations were issued in conjunction with an order

screening plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As of the date

of this order, the district judge has not issued an order either adopting or rejecting the findings

and recommendations that defendant Ramsey be dismissed from the action with prejudice.

2

the grounds of absolute immunity.1

 That same opinion also included an order dismissing the

remaining claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff had ten days from service of that order and

findings and recommendations to submit objections to the recommendation that defendant

Ramsey be dismissed with prejudice. The order for dismissal of the balance of the complaint is

not a dispositive order as the dismissal was with leave to amend. Accordingly, any objections to

that portion of the opinion is premature unless and until such time as the remainder of the

complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on December 12, 2006. It

appears that by those objections, plaintiff seeks to object not only to the recommendation that

defendant Ramsey be dismissed from the action with prejudice, but also to the non-dispositive

order portion of the December 5, 2006 opinion dismissing the remaining claims with leave to

amend. By separate order the district judge will rule on plaintiff’s objections to the

recommendation to dismiss Ramsey. This order is issued to inform plaintiff that her objections

are effective only in addressing the finding and recommendation portion of the December 5,

2006 opinion. They cannot be construed as an appeal from the December 5, 2006 order. WMX

Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (order dismissing

claims with leave to amend is not a final appealable order). Neither can plaintiff’s objections

serve as the amended complaint. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 15-220 (requirements for submission of an

amended pleading).

Plaintiff is again instructed that the court has granted her an opportunity to file a second

amended complaint. Therefore, if she wishes to proceed further with this case the court directs

her to file, within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order, a second amended

complaint in accordance with the December 5, 2006 order. The second amended complaint must

Case 2:06-cv-01881-JAM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” 

Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended complaint. Failure to timely

file a second amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the remaining claims in

this action be dismissed without further leave to amend.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01881-JAM-EFB Document 10 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3