UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 21, 2011
MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
D. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION FOR SCREENING AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE JUNE 15, 2011
(ECF Nos. 66, 67 & 68)
Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are a number of miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court will address each in turn below.
I. MOTION FOR SCREENING
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Screening asking the Court to screen his complaint or transfer his case to a district with a smaller caseload. (ECF No. 66.) Because the Court recently screened Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, (see ECF No. 65), Plaintiff's Motion for Screening is moot and is DENIED.
II. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Clarification that poses a number of questions he wants answered. (ECF No. 67.) The questions seek direction on legal issues (such as: What is required to exhaust administrative remedies?) None of the issues raised by Plaintiff are currently before the Court. The Court cannot offer advisory opinions on them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification is DENIED.
III. MOTION TO REPLY TO COURT ORDER
The Court's Screening Order found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, and Kim for violating the Eighth Amendment but failed to state a claim on his other grounds. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff was given the option of proceeding on the claims found cognizable or filing a fifth amended complaint. (Id. at 18.)
In response, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to reply to court order" asking the Court to allow him to file a fifth amended complaint only as to the five Defendants against whom he has already stated a claim. (ECF No. 68.) He wishes to refile these claims so that his operative complaint will have "no deficiencies or problems later on in litigation." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint if he does so on or before June 15, 2011. If the Court has not received Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint by June 15, 2011, it will proceed and order the fourth amended complaint served on the five defendants against whom it states a claim.
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Screening is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Reply to Court Order is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiff shall file a fifth amended complaint no later than June 15, 2011. If Plaintiff misses this deadline, the Court will proceed on the fourth amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.