UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 17, 2011
ANTHONY LOREN PERKINS,
P. YANEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISREGARDING NON-COMPLIANT RESPONSE AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH SCREENING ORDER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Docs. 13 and 14)
Plaintiff Anthony Loren Perkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 7, 2010. On September 9, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Yanez. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a non-compliant response.
Plaintiff disagrees in part with the screening order and he seeks to proceed against all three defendants. If that is not permissible, Plaintiff requests to "proceed accordingly." (Doc. 14, Response, 4:14.) Plaintiff's response is accompanied by argument and citations to the record and caselaw.
If Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's screening order, his recourse is to file an amended complaint. To proceed forward at this time with his cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Yanez, Plaintiff must be willing to dismiss the claims the Court found to be non-cognizable, which also results in the dismissal of Defendants Wooten and Martinez. If the dismissal of claims and parties is not agreeable to and voluntary on Plaintiff's part, he must file an amended complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's non-compliant response is HEREBY DISREGARDED and Plaintiff shall file a response in compliance with the Court's screening order within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.