Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abbott
Defendant
Gregory C. Bontemps
Plaintiff
Neves
Defendant
Salinas
Defendant
Shillford
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-2185 AC P

vs.

SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has consented to the jurisdiction of the

undersigned. See Consent, Sept. 4, 2012, ECF No. 3.

By order filed November 26, 2012, the court determined that plaintiff’s

complaint, filed August 3, 2012, stated colorable First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment claims

against defendants Neves, Abbott, and Shillford. See Order, Nov. 26, 2012, ECF No. 10. The

court noted that plaintiff had not raised any colorable claims against defendant Salinas, and so

offered the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include any claims against

defendant Salinas. Id. 

In response, plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, but did request that

1

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 17 Filed 05/08/13 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

defendant Salinas be dismissed. See Declaration of Gregory Bontemps requesting Correctional

Officer Salinas Be Dismissed, Dec. 19, 2012, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff also attempted to

supplement his claims against defendant Neves. See Declaration of Gregory Bontemps against

Correctional Officer Neves, Dec. 19, 2012, ECF No. 13. The court advised plaintiff that he

could not supplement his complaint, but, if he wanted to add additional claims, he must do so in

an amended complaint. See Order, Feb. 14, 2013, ECF No. 15. The court granted plaintiff an

additional 30 days to file such an amended complaint, and advised plaintiff that if he chose not to

file an amended complaint, the action would proceed against defendants Neves, Abbott, and

Shillford, on the claims raised in the original complaint only. Id. The thirty day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

By separate order, the court will direct service of the complaint on defendants

Neves, Abbott, and Shillford. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to dismiss

defendant Salinas be granted, and that defendant Salinas be dismissed from this action with

prejudice.

DATED: May 7, 2013.

 

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AC:rb/bont2185.B3

2

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 17 Filed 05/08/13 Page 2 of 2