IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 28, 2009
STEVEN V. BOGUE, PLAINTIFF,
M. WIEGEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On March 19, 2009, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. On March 27, 2009, plaintiff filed a document which appears to be his amended complaint. This document consists of 2 1/2 handwritten pages on notebook paper in which plaintiff generally describes his claims.
The court cannot determine from the amended complaint who plaintiff intends to name as defendants. While plaintiff discusses claims against defendant Weigel, it is unclear whether he intends to name additional defendants. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was shot in the back of the head by defendant Wiegel and now suffers from blackouts, etc. Plaintiff alleges no facts describing the shooting, such as why defendant Wiegel was shooting in the first place. Without knowing why defendant Wiegel shot at plaintiff, the court cannot determine whether plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for relief.
For these reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint must be prepared on the complaint form provided to plaintiff by the court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The amended complaint filed March 27, 2009, is dismissed with thirty days to file a second amended complaint;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.