From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wren v. Warden Mule Creek Prison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 1, 2021
2:21-cv-0903 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0903 KJM KJN P

07-01-2021

JEFFREY CHARLES WREN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN MULE CREEK PRISON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 29, 2021, the undersigned issued an order screening plaintiff's original complaint, dismissing the complaint but with leave to amend. (ECF No. 19.) However, on June 28, 2021, plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint, signed on June 17, 2021, was entered on the court's docket. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint crossed in the mail with the court's screening order, and the amended complaint suffers from many of the same defects discussed in the June 29, 2021 order. For example, in his third claim, plaintiff seeks monies owed, allegedly removed from plaintiff's trust account by two of the defendants. (ECF No. 18 at 9.) Plaintiff was advised that he cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim based on the deprivation of property. (ECF No. 19 at 6-7.) Plaintiff's proposed first and second claims for relief are based on implausible, fanciful or delusional allegations, some of which he alleged in his original pleading. For example, he claims he was cuffed and “forced into a box with a polyurethane floor, shut in, and nuked by hot bright fire.” (ECF No. 18 at 3.) In his second claim, plaintiff alleges he was taken to New York Ranch Road Castle where he was shot in the head, and an officer broke plaintiffs back between his shoulder blades with a pick axe like miners use. (ECF No. 18 at 6.) A military plane took video and flew plaintiff out of there. (Id.) Such implausible allegations do not state cognizable claims.

Because plaintiff did not have benefit of the court's screening order when he prepared and filed his proposed amended complaint, plaintiffs amended complaint is also dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is required to comply with the provisions of the June 29, 2021 screening order when preparing his proposed second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs amended complaint (ECF No. 18) is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint that complies with the June 29, 2021 order (ECF No. 19) on or before July 29, 2021.


Summaries of

Wren v. Warden Mule Creek Prison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 1, 2021
2:21-cv-0903 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Wren v. Warden Mule Creek Prison

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY CHARLES WREN, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN MULE CREEK PRISON, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 1, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0903 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2021)