UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2012
JOSEPH ANTHONY BROWN,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 17, 18, 19, 21, 23)
Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Brown, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff's September 15, 2011 Complaint was screened by the Court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss, ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2012 (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 16) which the Court screened and dismissed with leave to amend. (Order Dismiss First Am. Compl., ECF No. 22.)
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions: to Clarify the First Amended Complaint (Mot. Clarify, ECF No. 17), to Add a Named Defendant (Mot. Add Def., ECF No. 18), to Add a Certificate of Service (Mot. Add Certif., ECF No. 19), and to Add and Amend Supplemental Complaint to First Amended Complaint, the last of which the Court construes as motions to amend or supplement the First Amended Complaint. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Response regarding Service of the First Amended Complaint (Mot. For Resp., ECF No. 21), which the Court construes as a request for status.
These motions are moot. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint has been dismissed and he has been given thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint. He should review the May 2, 2012 second screening order to ensure his amended complaint complies.
The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve an amended complaint only after the Court has screened it and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motions (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 21, 23) are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.