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.

Howard v. Sullivan

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


March 18, 2009

CLARENCE E. HOWARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
W. J. SULLIVAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 4, 2009, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 27)

Plaintiff Clarence E. Howard ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July 6, 2007. On April 11, 2008, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 12, 2008. On March 4, 2009, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff's amended complaint states a claim under the Due Process Clause against Defendant Kamel, but fails to state any Eighth Amendment claims or any claims against Defendants Sullivan and Hazel. Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claim against Defendant Kamel.

On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response in which he states that he is ready to proceed against Defendant Kamel, and that he needs the required documents to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff may not agree to proceed on his cognizable claim against Defendant Kamel and file a second amended complaint. He must do one or the other.

Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL comply with the Court's order of March 4, 2009, by either filing a second amended complaint or notifying the Court that he is willing to proceed only against Defendant Kamel on his due process claim against Defendant Kamel; and

2. The failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090318

© 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.