UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2009
MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, PLAINTIFF,
CDC AVENAL STATE PRISON OFFICERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS (Docs. 32, 35, 39, and 43)
Plaintiff Moody Woodrow Tanksley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's third amended complaint, filed December 4, 2008, against Defendants Martin, Davidson, and Miller for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are four miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff.
On January 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to add prison employees Sunatamoto, Beim, and Lopez as defendants in this action, and seeking a referral of all defendants to the Kings County District Attorney's Office for prosecution. On January 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking the addition of Sunatamoto, Beim, and Lopez to this action.
Plaintiff's motions are denied. It is not the function of the court to refer matters for criminal prosecution. Further, if Plaintiff wishes to add parties to this action, he must file a motion seeking leave to amend and submit with the motion a proposed fourth amended complaint setting forth all his claims and all the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a trial date. Plaintiff's motion is premature, and is denied. Trial dates are not set this early in the proceeding in cases such as this. If Defendants' pending motion to dismiss is denied, a scheduling order will be issued after they file an answer. A trial date will be set after the expiration of the dispositive motion deadline set in that scheduling order and after the resolution of any pending dispositive motions (e.g., motions for summary judgment), if claims remain pending at that time.
Finally, on May 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order requiring Defendants to file an answer or a plea to his third amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion is denied. Defendants do not enter pleas in civil cases, and Defendants filed a timely motion to dismiss on April 20, 2009. The motion to dismiss is Defendants' first response to the third amended complaint, and Plaintiff is required to respond. Local Rule 78-230(m).
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motions are HEREBY DENIED (court documents 32, 35, 39, and 43).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.