Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00034-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, which

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, with particular attention to those portions relevant or pertinent to the objections raised, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis.

In its May 31, 2006, Order, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days within which to file an

amended complaint curing several deficiencies contained in his complaint and a document

entitled “complaint medical indifference.” Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within

the time specified. In his objections Plaintiff claims that he mailed what he terms as a sevenpage “answer” to the May 31 Order on June 18, 2006, by delivery to prison officials, addressed

to the Court. There is no record that it was ever received by the Clerk’s Office. Although he

Case 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 3
ORDER

Armstrong v. Runnels, 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH 2

does not append a copy of the pleading he asserts was mailed, Plaintiff does recite the table of

contents from that document. From that table of contents the Court is unable to ascertain

whether the pleading Plaintiff states was mailed to the Court but not received cures the

deficiencies noted in the May 31 Order. A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to

amend unless it appears that Plaintiff cannot plead sufficient facts to warrant relief. Thinket Ink

Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court

cannot, based on the record before it, determine with any degree of certainty whether Plaintiff

can plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this

case the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

The following guide is provided Plaintiff to follow in drafting his amended complaint:

1. The complaint must— 

(a) comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice,

(b) be submitted on the form provided with this order, 

(c) bear the docket number assigned to this case, and

(d) be clearly captioned “Second Amended Complaint”;

3. For each defendant, name the defendant and describe how that person is

personally involved in violating Plaintiff’s rights, i.e., specify what act or omission of the

defendant violated plaintiff’s rights and when that act or omission occurred; and

4. If necessary, attach additional sheets.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 10, 2006, are adopted to the extent they

are not inconsistent with this Order; 

2. The Amended Complaint at Docket No. 7, as supplemented by the Complaint Medical

Indifference at Docket No. 9, is DISMISSED, without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff is granted until April 21, 2008, to file an amended complaint complying with

this Order and the May 31 Order at Docket No. 10; 

4. The matter is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings; and

Case 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 3
ORDER

Armstrong v. Runnels, 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH 3

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to again send Plaintiff the form to be used by a

prisoner filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Dated: March 25, 2008.

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00034-JKS-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 3