BURNETT v. LIMA

Case No. 1:16-cv-01671-SAB (PC).

CARLOS BURNETT, Plaintiff, v. L. LIMA, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Carlos Burnett, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ONLY ON EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM OR FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S APRIL 5, 2017, ORDER

[ECF Nos. 1, 10, 11]

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Carlos Burnett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 5, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Christopher Constello, Brent Urban and William Jones and a cognizable claim for failing to intervene against Defendant M. Lefler. (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that Plaintiff's allegations did not give rise to an unrelated claim of denial of access to the Courts. (Id.) The Court directed Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only on the excessive force and failure to intervene claims found to be cognizable. (Id.)

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's April 5, 2017, order; however, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is intending to proceed solely on the excessive force and failure to intervene claims. The caption of the notice states "NOTIFY THE COURT OF (ELITE) IN SUPPORT OF OFFICIAL OF STRATFORD INSTITUTE; LEAVE OF DENIAL OF INJURY VIOLATE CONSTITUTION CLAIM; IN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM TO BE FOUND COGNIZABLE." (ECF No. 11.) Although Plaintiff states that he intends to proceed on the cognizable claims, Plaintiff's notice appears to elaborate on the alleged denial of access to the courts claim which was found to be non-cognizable and unrelated. (ECF No. 10.) In light of the ambiguity present in Plaintiff's notice, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a further response to the Court's April 5, 2017, order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint or a notice clearly stating that he intends to proceed solely on the excessive force and failure to intervene claims; and

2. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases