IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2012
RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,
HERRINGONT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO AMEND AND MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Doc. Nos. 54, 59, 60)
On March 27, 2012, the Court adopted a findings and recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff's third amended complaint. See Doc. No. 70. The third amended complaint, however, is erroneously identified as a motion to amend, and is Document No. 54 in the docket sheet. Further, the docket reflect that Doc. No. 54 is an active motion. This is erroneous.
Additionally, there is a motion to amend and a motion for judicial notice that were mooted when the Court dismissed the third amended complaint on March 27, 2012. Because they are moot, it is appropriate to deny the motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) and the motion for judicial notice (Doc. No. 59).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ordered that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. No. 60) and motion for judicial notice (Doc. No. 59) are DENIED as moot; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. No. 54), which in reality is the third amended complaint, is DENIED as moot due to the Court's dismissal of the third amended complaint with leave to amend (see Doc. No. 70).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.