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.

Calloway v. Veal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 4, 2009

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN M. VEAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCREENING ORDER (Doc. 12)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THAT COMPLIES WITH SCREENING ORDER AND DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE PAGES IN LENGTH

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway 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 December 10, 2008, and on February 19, 2009, the Court dismissed his complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 9, 2009, and a second amended complaint on May 12, 2009.

Plaintiff was notified via the screening order that he may not pursue claims against the California Medical Facility and the Queen of the Valley Hospital in this action because venue is improper. Plaintiff was informed that if he wishes to pursue those claims, he must file a separate action in the Sacramento Division, and Plaintiff was directed to omit those claims from his amended complaint. Plaintiff was further informed that he may not proceed on a myriad of unrelated claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

Despite those admonitions, Plaintiff expanded his nine page original complaint into a sixty-four page second amended complaint that violates the Court's screening order by alleging claims against the California Medical Facility and the Queen of the Valley Hospital, and alleging a myriad of unrelated claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff 's second amended complaint, filed May 12, 2009, is STRICKEN from the record for failure to comply the Court's screening order of February 19, 2009;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint that complies with the directives set forth in the screening order of February 19, 2009;

3. Plaintiff 's third amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five pages in length; and

4. The failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court, up to and including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090904

© 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.