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.

Horace Bell v. Sherry Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 14, 2011

HORACE BELL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHERRY LOPEZ, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO AMEND BUT DENYING LEAVE TO FILE INCOMPLETE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT LODGED ON NOVEMBER 29, 2010

(Docs. 8, 9, and 10)

Plaintiff Horace Bell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 24, 2010. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of right on October 7, 2010. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). On November 22, 2010, and November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions seeking leave to amend, and on November 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint. However, the proposed second amended complaint lodged on November 29, 2010, shall not be filed. If Plaintiff amends, he is required to file a second amended complaint that is complete within itself without reference to any other pleadings. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Local Rule 220.

Further, Plaintiff is notified that "[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed with a "mishmash of a complaint," George, 507 F.3d at 607, and he is cautioned that if his second amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 18(a), the Court will dismiss the unrelated claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions to amend, filed November 22, 2010, and November 29, 2010, are GRANTED;

2. Leave to file the proposed second amended complaint, lodged November 29, 2010, is DENIED because the pleading is not complete within itself;

3. If Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint, he must file one document setting forth all of his claims; and

4. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff a blank complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj

20110414

© 1992-2011 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.