IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 17, 2013
NOEL KEITH WATKINS, PLAINTIFF,
VAMIL SINGH, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 20, 2012, the court screened the amended complaint that was filed on November 29, 2012. The amended complaint was dismissed but plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint. Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, plaintiff was previously granted in forma pauperis status. Therefore, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis not necessary.
Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion to correct a filing. The docket indicates that plaintiff filed amended complaints on December 19, 2012 and December 28, 2012. Both of these amended complaints were dated prior to the December 20, 2012 order which screened the November 29, 2012 amended complaint. The two December amended complaints allege that plaintiff was assaulted while in prison which is different from plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims that he raised in the November 29, 2012 amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the December filings should be filed as a separate action and requests that the court make it so. In light of the fact that plaintiff has filed numerous complaints, and so as to avoid any possible confusion, the motion to correct filing will be denied.*fn1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 29.) is GRANTED and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 27.) is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; and
3. Plaintiff's motion to correct filing (Dkt. No. 28.) is DENIED.