RANDLE v. GOODWIN

No. 2:16-cv-2419 KJN P.

WILLIE D. RANDLE, Plaintiff, v. M. GOODWIN, 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 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Willie D. Randle, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

M. Goodwin, Defendant, represented by Andrew James Whisnand , Office of the Attorney General.

M. Bobbola, Defendant, represented by Andrew James Whisnand , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On April 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of Doe parties and sought service of process on the newly-named defendants. On June 2, 2017, defendants Bobbola and Goodwin filed a motion to dismiss. However, on June 1, 2017, plaintiff presented an amended complaint to prison authorities for mailing, which was filed with this court on June 5, 2017. On June 7, 2017, defendants Bobbola and Goodwin requested the court screen the amended pleading, and be relieved of their obligation to file a responsive pleading until further order of court.

Under the mailbox rule,1 plaintiff's amended complaint was filed as of right prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss. Because the motion to dismiss is directed to the original complaint, which is now superseded by the amended complaint, defendants' motion to dismiss is moot and is denied. Defendants' request to screen the amended complaint is granted; the pleading will be screened by separate order. In addition, plaintiff included his claims against defendants Tripoli and Yang in his amended complaint; thus, his notice of substitution of their names for those named as Doe defendants in the original complaint, is also moot and is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's notice of substitution (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice;

3. Defendants' request for screening (ECF No. 15) is granted; and

4. Defendants Bobbola and Goodwin are relieved of their obligation to file a responsive pleading until further order of court.

FootNotes


1. See Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the mailbox rule, the petition is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing).

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