IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 21, 2009
MICHAEL A HUNT, PLAINTIFF,
R. RIOS, D. FIELDS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel P. King Senior United States District Judge
ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FILING OF NEW ACTION
By order filed on November 2, 2009, this Court inter alia denied a request by Plaintiff Michael Hunt to amend the operative complaint in this action. Plaintiff had sought to add claims of alleged retaliation that were distinct from the alleged retaliation in the operative complaint of August 22, 2008. The new alleged events, although arguably related to the complaint in this action, concerned allegations of distinct retaliation that had not been administratively exhausted when the original complaint was filed. The Court's denial of the request to amend, however, was without prejudice to the filing of a new separate action regarding the distinct events.
On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages [doc. 30] and a corresponding new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [doc. 31]. Plaintiff has apparently filed the new action based upon the distinct allegations of retaliation. This was apparently intended to have been filed as a new, distinct (although possibly related) action. The new Complaint, however, was filed incorrectly by the Clerk as an Amended Complaint (something which was previously denied) in this action. The new Complaint should be a new action with a new civil number.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the "Amended Complaint" [doc. 30] from this action and directs the Clerk to file that document in a new action with a new civil number. That action should be assigned in the normal course to the next available Judge. The corresponding Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [doc. 31] is also STRICKEN from this action and shall be filed in the new civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.