UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 29, 2010
THEODORE BRITTON YATES,
C. KING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
(Docs. 26, 28)
Plaintiff Theodore Britton Yates ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 12, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims in his original complaint that were found to be cognizable. (Doc. #23.) Plaintiff's response to the Court order is unclear.
On November 18, 2010, the Court received a short note from Plaintiff stating that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. (Doc. #24.) On the same day, the Court received a document entitled "Amended Complaint." (Doc. #25.)
On November 19, 2010, the Court received a third document from Plaintiff. Although the document is written on the form used for complaints, Plaintiff titled the document "Motion to Proceed and Amended Complaint to Be Honored for the Following Allegations'[sic] Against C. King et al. Only." (Doc. #26.) That same day, the Court received a fourth document entitled "Complaint Amended & Add On." (Doc. #27.) All four documents set forth facts related to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant C. King.
Finally, on November 22, 2010, the Court received a fifth document from Plaintiff entitled "Motion for to[sic] show Deliberate indifference and or Violation of the 8th Amendment and or Relief." (Doc. #28.)
Plaintiff's pleadings are non-responsive to the Court's November 12, 2010 order that Plaintiff either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims in his original complaint that were found to be cognizable. Accordingly, the five filings described above will be disregarded.
The Court will again order Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the November 12, 2010 order. Plaintiff's response must be one of the following: 1) a short notice informing the Court that Plaintiff wishes to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable, or 2) an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies in the claims dismissed in the November 12, 2010 order. Plaintiff is forewarned that filing a pleading that does not comply with this order may result in this action being dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either
a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the November 12, 2010 order, or
b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendant C. King for deliberate indifference toward a serious threat to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
2. Plaintiff's November 19, 2010, and November 22, 2010, motions are DENIED/DISREGARDED.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.