Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terence L. Davis v. Sheena

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 29, 2013

TERENCE L. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHEENA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to this court's jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 5.)

As recounted in this court's September 12, 2012 screening order, plaintiff's original complaint in this action concerned his medical treatment at the Sacramento County Jail after plaintiff slipped in the shower in June 2010. (Dkt. No 1; see Dkt. No. 7.) After determining that plaintiff stated a claim against defendant Sheena, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend as to the other three defendants and to otherwise cure the deficiencies of the complaint. (Dkt. No. 7 at 7.) The court informed plaintiff that "any amended complaint shall not include allegations unrelated to the claims that are the subject of the instant action," and that once an amended complaint is filed, "the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case."

(Id. at 8.) The court also ordered that any amended complaint "shall not exceed twenty (20) pages." (Id. at 9.)

Before the court is plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on November 28, 2012. (Dkt. No. 12.) The FAC names as defendants High Desert State Prison, S. Young, Correctional Officer Pribble, and unnamed "kitchen personnel," among others. Upon review, the FAC appears to contain numerous unrelated allegations that have nothing to do with the original allegations in this action. Rather, it concerns events that allegedly occurred after plaintiff was transferred to HDSP in October 2010. (Id. at 20.) Moreover, at 65 pages, the FAC exceeds the ordered page limit by 45 pages.

Because plaintiff has disregarded two requirements for an amended complaint as set forth in the September 12, 2012 order, the court will dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

20130129

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.