Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00929/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00929-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILLIAM WARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BATRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00929-NODJ-SKO (PC) 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR 

A FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ronald William Ward is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2023, following screening of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the 

Court issued Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss this Action for Failure to State a Claim 

Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. (Doc. 27.) 

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed his objections. (Doc. 29.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In its Findings and Recommendations, the Court found Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to comply 

with the First Screening Order, should not be converted to a pro se civil action, and that 

Case 1:21-cv-00929-KES-SKO Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 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

amendment was futile because it appeared Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure the 

deficiencies identified in the screening order. (Doc. 27 at 5-8.) The Court recommended 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice for a failure to state a claim. 

(Id. at 8.) 

In his objections, Plaintiff apologizes to the Court “for his errors in following the courts 

instructions.” (Doc. 29 at 1.) Plaintiff includes an “amended complaint wherein plaintiff followed 

the courts instructions closely” and asks the Court to consider it as he “thinks and believes he has 

corrected” the errors identified by the Court. (Id.) 

The Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations issued November 14, 2023, and 

direct the Clerk of the Court to file the amended complaint, filed and submitted as a part of 

Plaintiff’s objections, as Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s 

third amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) in due course. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 14, 2023 (Doc. 27) are 

VACATED; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the amended complaint submitted as a 

part of Plaintiff’s December 4, 2023 (Doc. 29 at 3-59) filing separately on the docket 

as Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00929-KES-SKO Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 2