Opinion
No. CIV S-10-1653 GEB EFB PS.
October 6, 2011
ORDER
This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing. Dckt. No. 36. However, on September 27, 2011, the assigned district judge issued an order dismissing plaintiff's first amended complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend as to some of plaintiff's claims. Dckt. No. 35. Plaintiff has not yet filed a second amended complaint, as authorized therein. Therefore, there is currently no operative complaint in this action.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for a hearing, Dckt. No. 36, is denied.
Plaintiff's request for a hearing also fails to comply with this court's Local Rules and appears to be based on new factual allegations that were not alleged in plaintiff's first amended complaint and are not authorized to be included in any second amended complaint plaintiff files. See Dckt. No. 33 at 17:17; Dckt. No. 35 at 2.
Dated: October 5, 2011.