UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 20, 2010
DEREK J. BLOODWORTH,
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAND ON THE SECOND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS [Doc. No. 36]
I. Procedural History
On November 30, 2009, Derek Bloodworth ("Plaintiff"), a former state inmate, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A, the Court conducted a sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's Complaint, granted his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the Complaint. See Jan. 6, 2010 Order at 5-6.
On February 24, 2010, Defendants County of Imperial and Raymond Loera filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 7]. Plaintiff then filed a "Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint" and a "Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Marshal Serve Summons, and First Amended Complaint." Magistrate Judge Peter Lewis issued an Order granting Plaintiff permission to file a First Amended Complaint and denying his request for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service on the newly added Defendants.
Upon review of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court found that it was appropriate to conduct a sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) ("[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune.). The Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim but provided him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. See May 3, 2010 Order at 7-8. On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The Court, once again, conducted a sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court found, once again, that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing the action. See July 19, 2010 Order at 8-9. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Id.
Plaintiff then sought leave for an extension of time to file his Third Amended Complaint which was granted by the Court. See Oct. 8, 2010 Order at 1-2. Now, Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Stand on the Second Amended Complaint." [Doc. No. 36].
II. Motion to Stand on the Second Amended Complaint
In this Motion, Plaintiff informs the Court that he does not intend to file a Third Amended Complaint and requests that this Court issue a final Order so that he may appeal the Court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff indicates that he "respectfully disagrees with this court's conclusions of law and reading of his allegations." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.) Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment in this matter.
III. Conclusion and Order
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's "Motion to Stand on the Second Amended Complaint" is GRANTED. Plaintiff's entire action is DISMISSED for all the reasons set forth in the Court's July 19, 2010 Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for the Defendants and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.