Opinion
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1065-MJS (PC).
April 22, 2011
Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are a number of miscellaneous motions filed by Plaintiff. The Court will address each in turn below.
I. MOTION FOR SCREENING
II. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
see
III. MOTION TO REPLY TO COURT ORDER
The Court's Screening Order found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, and Kim for violating the Eighth Amendment but failed to state a claim on his other grounds. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff was given the option of proceeding on the claims found cognizable or filing a fifth amended complaint. (Id. at 18.)
In response, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to reply to court order" asking the Court to allow him to file a fifth amended complaint only as to the five Defendants against whom he has already stated a claim. (ECF No. 68.) He wishes to refile these claims so that his operative complaint will have "no deficiencies or problems later on in litigation." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint if he does so on or before June 15, 2011. If the Court has not received Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint by June 15, 2011, it will proceed and order the fourth amended complaint served on the five defendants against whom it states a claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Screening is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Reply to Court Order is GRANTED; and
4. Plaintiff shall file a fifth amended complaint no later than June 15, 2011. If Plaintiff misses this deadline, the Court will proceed on the fourth amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2011