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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

George Johnson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2255 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Joseph Sherman, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, pursues a civil

rights action for damages and injunctive relief in connection

with compulsory Mantoux skin testing for tuberculosis.

April 13, 2005, the court approved service on defendants

Sherman, Lea and Flint and forwarded to plaintiff materials to

return for service of process by the United States Marshal.

Plaintiff moved March 7 and April 25, 2005, for a temporary

restraining order that he not be subjected, again, to Mantoux

skin testing. May 10, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to 

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

comply with requirements regarding service of his emergency

relief motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

May 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter withdrawing the

motions for a temporary restraining order as moot. The letter

stated plaintiff had not received the April 13, 2005, order

approving service or materials enclosed therewith. 

May 20, 2005, plaintiff filed an “amended complaint” seeking

to add claims against new defendants based on events in April

2005. The document is defective as an amended complaint because

it does not include allegations of the original pleading. Claims

based on events in April 2005 likely are not exhausted.

June 3, 2005, plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining

order and injunction regarding claimed interference with his

receipt of mail.

Good cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall re-serve on plaintiff the April

13, 2005, order approving service, three USM-285 forms and

instructions for service of process. Plaintiff shall submit

materials for service within 15 days, or amend his pleading

within 45 days. 

2. The May 20, 2005, “amended complaint” is stricken. 

Plaintiff may amend his pleading as of right before any defendant

has served an answer, but amended pleading must be complete in

itself to state all claims against all defendants. Pleading

claims based on events after this litigation commenced would

require plaintiff to file a supplemental pleading, upon leave of

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the court. Plaintiff is forewarned that amending or

supplementing the pleading will delay in serving defendants.

3. Plaintiff’s March 7 and April 25, 2005, motions for a

temporary restraining order are deemed withdrawn.

4. Plaintiff’s June 3, 2005, motion for a temporary

restraining order and injunction is stricken because it does not

comply with Rule 65(b) requirements concerning notice or an

affidavit establishing why relief should be issued without

notice.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 14 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 3