IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 15, 2009
MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
C. STIEFERMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brings this action alleging civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. §1983. This case is proceeding against defendants Shoemaker, Stieferman, Holmes, Casero, Stiles, Kelley, Hayward, Martel, Vance, Rosario, Chastain, Rudolph, Goldman, Sherven, Johnson, Sunders and Pliler on plaintiff's claims of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
On December 29, 2008, plaintiff submitted to the court what appears to be a new complaint. The caption of this new complaint names two correctional officers as defendants: Bishop and Stovall, although plaintiff identifies several other defendants in a list of "parties." Neither of these two individuals, nor any of the other individuals identified as "parties," are named in plaintiff's previous complaint filed in this case. In addition, the December 29, 2008 complaint addresses different allegations against these other defendants, which do not appear to relate to the allegations raised in his complaints filed herein. It appears to the court that plaintiff's most recent complaint is actually a new complaint which should have been opened as a new case. This case should proceed on plaintiff's previous amended complaint (Doc.8) filed February 1, 2008.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the December 29, 2008 complaint from this case and open a new case using this document. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to randomly assign this new case as appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.