UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2011
CEDRIC R. ALLEN,
J. RIVERA, ET AL.,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COURT TO SCREEN PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Cedric Allen ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed the original complaint. (Doc. 1). On March 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. (Doc. 8). On August 15, 2008, the first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 17). On September 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. (Doc. 18). On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff was ordered to either submit an amended complaint or proceed on the cognizable claims. (Doc. 20). On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the Court order filed on March 18, 2010. (Doc. 24). On June 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint in response to the Court's order on May 24, 2010. (Doc. 25).*fn1 On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request seeking for the Court to respond to the third amended complaint and attached a copy of the third amended complaint. (Docs. 28, 29).
The Court is uncertain as to whether Plaintiff is merely requesting verification that the Court has received the third amended complaint, or if he is seeking for the complaint to be screen, so the court will address Plaintiff's motion as a request for screening the third amended complaint. (Doc. 29).
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the court, and delays are inevitable despite the Court's best efforts. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to screen the third amended complaint is DENIED. Moreover, the Court orders that the amended complaint filed on January 14, 2011, be STRICKEN, since it is duplicative of the third amended complaint filed on June 4, 2010.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE