Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00709-3/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

HAROLD WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

VAZQUEZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 709 AWI NEW (DLB) P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND 

and

INFORMING PLAINTIFF HE MAY FILE HIS

AMENDED COMPLAINT

 (Doc. #20) 

 Harold Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 2, 2005. On June 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Amend the Complaint to include a claim of denial of access to the courts. The Court

disregarded that Motion on June 23, 2005, informing Plaintiff that he did not need permission to

file an Amended Complaint once as that was his right. The Court also informed him that events

occurring after the initiation of this lawsuit were necessarily unexhausted and would be

dismissed from the action. Despite this information, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Amend on

Case 1:05-cv-00709-OWW -GSA Document 26 Filed 02/21/07 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

27

28

2

October 12, 2005. On November 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed the identical motion previously

submitted on October 12, 2005. The Court issued an Order disregarding both these Motions to

Amend on November 9, 2007, again informing Plaintiff of the rule and also that his repeated

filing of such motions was improper.

On February 20, 2007, Plaintiff submitted yet another Motion to Amend. To date,

however, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint. Thus, again, his Motion is improper. As

noted above, Plaintiff has been informed of the rule regarding motions to amend on numerous

occasions and has also been informed that the repeated filing of duplicative motions is improper. 

Despite this, Plaintiff continues to file Motions to Amend yet he has never filed an Amended

Complaint. 

Plaintiff is informed he may file his Amended Complaint without an order from this

court. Plaintiff should file his Amended Complaint as soon as possible. 

Because his motion to Amend is unnecessary it is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Amend the Complaint filed on February 16, 2007 is DENIED as

unnecessary.

2. Plaintiff may file his Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00709-OWW -GSA Document 26 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2