Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02136/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02136-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Bivins
Defendant
Brian Duffy
Defendant
Aaron Johnson
Plaintiff
M. Jordan
Defendant
R. Lee
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AARON JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRIAN DUFFY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02136-AC P 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 24, 2013, this court screened plaintiff’s first amended civil 

rights complaint and gave plaintiff the option of either (1) filing a second amended complaint to 

correct the deficiencies noted in the screening order, or (2) proceeding with the first amended 

complaint’s cognizable claims against Defendants R. Lee, M. Jordan, and R. Bivins. ECF No. 8 

at 5-6. Instead of choosing one of these specific options, plaintiff filed both service documents 

for Defendants Lee, Jordan, and Bivins and a second amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 14, 15. 

In his Notice of Submission of Documents form, plaintiff indicated that he “consents to the 

dismissal of Defendant Duffy and the excessive force claim without prejudice.” ECF No. 14 at 1. 

However, counts one and three of the second amended complaint specifically re-plead the 

excessive use of force claims screened out by the court’s prior order. Therefore, it is not clear to 

the court whether plaintiff is attempting to proceed on the cognizable claims presented in his first 

Case 2:13-cv-02136-JAM-AC Document 16 Filed 03/18/14 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

amended complaint, ECF No. 6, or whether plaintiff is seeking to expand his claims by filing a 

second amended complaint, ECF No. 15. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff shall file a notice of election with the court indicating whether he 

wants the court to serve the first amended complaint on Defendants Lee, Jordan, and Bivins, or 

whether he wants to proceed with the claims presented in the second amended complaint filed on 

February 13, 2014. Should plaintiff choose the first option, the court will strike the second 

amended complaint from the docket. If plaintiff chooses the second option, the court will strike 

the service documents returned on February 13, 2014 and screen the second amended complaint. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall file a notice of election within twenty-one days from the date of this 

order identifying how he wishes to proceed with this cause of action; and, 

 2. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order by clarifying how he chooses to proceed, the 

court will strike the service documents from the docket and screen the second amended 

complaint. 

DATED: March 17, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-02136-JAM-AC Document 16 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2