From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Witkin v. Cook

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
2:20-cv-2355 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-2355 JAM DB P

09-02-2021

MICHAEL WITKIN, Plaintiff, v. B. COOK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights.

By order dated August 17, 2021, the court screened plaintiff's first amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) The court found plaintiff stated a cognizable First Amendment claim but failed to state a state law negligence claim. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed on the complaint as screened or to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has elected to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the court's August 17, 2021 screening order (ECF No. 17), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.

2. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.”

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.


Summaries of

Witkin v. Cook

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
2:20-cv-2355 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Witkin v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL WITKIN, Plaintiff, v. B. COOK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 2, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-2355 JAM DB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)