(PC) Webster v. Haskins

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS WEBSTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CORRECT DOCKET ENTRY 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO HASKINS, WITHDRAW MOTION TO AMEND 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 69) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE MOTION TO AMEND (ECF No. 63) 19 Plaintiff Thomas Webster (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained under California Welfare Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds against Defendant Haskins for denial of adequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 22, 37.)

26 On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 63.) Defendant Haskins filed an opposition on February 10, 2021. (ECF No. 66.)

1 Currently before the Court is a Certificate of Service filed by Plaintiff on February 25, 2021. (ECF No. 69.) Upon review of the document, it appears that the filing also includes Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his proposed second amended complaint, which was not reflected in the docket entry. (ECF No. 69, p. 2.) Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to correct the docket entry.

6 In Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff states that he requests to withdraw the proposed second amended complaint and proceed with the current suit. Plaintiff states that he is acting in good faith and is not intentionally trying to delay the outcome of these proceedings with his original request to add a new defendant in the proposed second amended complaint. (Id.) 10 Although Defendant Haskins has not had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s notice of withdrawal, in light of Defendant’s opposition to the motion to amend the Court finds that no response is necessary and Defendant will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s motion.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket entry for Plaintiff’s February 25, 16 2021 certificate of service, (ECF No. 69), to convert the filing to a motion titled: “Motion 17 to Withdraw Second Amended Complaint”; 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the motion to amend, (ECF No. 69), is GRANTED; 19 3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 63), is WITHDRAWN; and 20 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 63.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: February 26, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE