UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 28, 2013
JAMES YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
(ECF No. 35)
Plaintiff James Suknaich ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to inform him of the status of his case. (ECF No. 35.)
Plaintiff's motion is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 13, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint, found that it did not state a claim, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Again, the Court screened Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, found that it did not state a claim, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21), with similar results (ECF No. 22).
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, but like his previous pleadings, it was deficient because Plaintiff failed to name any individual defendants who could be liable for the actions alleged in his pleadings. (ECF No. 25.) Since Plaintiff could not continue this action without any named defendants, the Court appointed counsel for the limited purpose of discovering the names of potential defendants. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff's counsel was unable to discover any helpful information and the counsel appointment has since been terminated. (ECF Nos. 34 & 36.)
Accordingly, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to identify by name the parties responsible for the actions alleged in his pleadings or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff has responded with what appears to be an amended pleading with names of responsible parties. (ECF No. 40.)
Accordingly, the Court will screen Plaintiff's amended pleading in due course and then issue such orders as prove appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.