Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Felker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2009

EDWARD THOMAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. FELKER, T. PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan P. Graber United States Circuit Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff has requested two additional USM-285 forms because he wishes to serve one additional defendant (Lieutenant R. Plainer) who was not named as a defendant in the complaint, but against whom factual allegations were presented. The court construes this motion as a motion to amend the complaint to add an additional defendant. A plaintiff may amend his complaint before trial once as a matter of course, as long as he has not yet been served with a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff has not yet been served with a responsive pleading. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to add a party defendant is granted. Relation back of the amendment to the date of the original pleading is not necessary because California's two-year statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has not expired. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff is advised that any further amendments to his complaint are permissible only with the opposing parties' written consent or the court's leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Plaintiff's motion does not explain why two additional USM-285 forms are necessary, as Plaintiff seeks to serve only one additional defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff will be sent only one additional form.

Plaintiff has also requested that the Court send him photocopies of his motion for an emergency preliminary injunction and his motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has been previously notified that this court cannot provide copies of documents to litigants. No exception will be made in this case, particularly because both motions already have been denied.

Finally, Plaintiff has requested that the court send him a copy of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California. The court declines to do so. Plaintiff may seek permission to gain access to the prison law library, where a copy of the Local Rules should be available.

Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add Lieutenant R. Plainer as a party defendant is granted.

2. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff one additional USM-285 form.

3. Plaintiff's other requests are denied.

20090311

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.