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.

Robert Christopher Jimenez v. J. Whitefield

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 7, 2010

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER JIMENEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. WHITEFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By an order filed November 9, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms and copies of his March 22, 2010 amended complaint which are required to effect service on the defendants. On December 1, 2010, plaintiff submitted the USM-285 forms but failed to file eight, identical copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed on March 22, 2010. Plaintiff will be granted an extension of time in which to provide these documents.

On November 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a 39 page document entitled "Amend Complaint." (Dkt. No. 16.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff previously amended his complaint on March 22, 2010.

Therefore, plaintiff must seek leave of court if he wishes to amend his complaint again. Id. Furthermore, plaintiff's action has been pending for over a year. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on November 17, 2009, in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff's March 22, 2010 seven-page amended complaint is short and plain as required under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If plaintiff seeks leave to amend, he must explain the reason for his delay, as well as why he believes an amendment is necessary. Plaintiff is advised that he is not required to submit exhibits with his complaint; exhibits are required in connection with dispositive motions and at trial. Moreover, plaintiff has already separately filed exhibits (dkt. nos. 6 & 11). (See Dkt. No. 15.) In addition, plaintiff is cautioned that seeking leave to amend his complaint may delay service of process of this action. Because plaintiff did not seek leave of court prior to submitting his second proposed amended complaint, his November 12, 2010 filing will be disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the amended complaint filed March 22, 2010 (Dkt. No. 9);

2. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall submit to the court eight copies of the endorsed amended complaint required to effect service. Each copy must be an exact duplicate of the eight page amended complaint filed March 22, 2010. Failure to return the copies within the specified time period will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. Plaintiff's November 12, 2010 filing (dkt. no. 16) is disregarded.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. J. WHITEFIELD, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2943 KJN P

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed .

copies of the

March 22, 2010 Amended Complaint

DATED:

Plaintiff

20101207

© 1992-2010 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.