IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 4, 2010
RICHARD BASSETT, PLAINTIFF,
E. CALLISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On June 21, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to file a first amended complaint.*fn1
Plaintiff indicates he has removed all claims against defendant Staniff, who was previously dismissed from this action, and has included other facts and corrections. Plaintiff's second amended complaint states a potentially cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as to defendants Callison and Swart. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion will be granted, and defendants will be directed to respond to the second amended complaint.
On August 4, 2010, defendants Callison and Swart filed an application for an additional thirty days in which to respond to the complaint. Because the court is allowing plaintiff to amend, the court will grant defendants an additional sixty days in which to file a response to the second amended complaint. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to serve a copy of the second amended complaint on counsel for defendants.
On July 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for court order allowing plaintiff to communicate with a prisoner witness. However, defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading. Plaintiff's motion is premature and will be denied without prejudice to its renewal once defendants have filed a responsive pleading.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's June 21, 2010 motion to amend (dkt. no. 33) is granted;
2. Defendants' August 4, 2010 request for extension (dkt. no. 43) is granted;
3. Defendants Callison and Swart shall respond to the second amended complaint (dkt. no. 34) on or before sixty days from the date of this order; and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the June 21, 2010 second amended complaint (dkt. no. 34) on counsel for defendants.
5. Plaintiff's July 12, 2010 motion (dkt. no. 39) is denied without prejudice.