Brazier v. CDCR

Full title: ANTHONY BRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 24, 2013

2:12-cv-0883 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2013)

Opinion

ANTHONY BRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendant. No. 2:12-cv-0883 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 24, 2013

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2012, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 14, 2013, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment in part, remanding this action "for the sole purpose of allowing Brazier to amend his due process claim against defendant Miramentes to allege that Brazier did, in fact, have an ownership interest in the tax refunds credited to his inmate trust account, absent which Brazier's claim must fail." (ECF No. 27, citing Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827 (9th Cir. 1997).) The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other defendants. (Id.)

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty days to submit an amended complaint alleging, or attempting to allege, a due process claim against defendant Miramentes regarding the removal of funds from plaintiff's inmate trust account. Plaintiff's failure to submit an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action.