Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johnnie Jabaar Wells, proceeding without a lawyer and in forma pauperis, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against B. Cates and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. He filed his original complaint on October 31, 2025. In its First Screening Order issued October 1, 2026, the court concluded that the complaint did not state a cognizable constitutional claim against any named defendant. Wells was directed to cure the identified deficiencies in a first amended complaint, state that he intended to stand on the screened complaint, or file a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of service of that order.
After more than 21 days passed without a compliant filing, the undersigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations on October 28, 2026, recommending dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to comply, and failure to prosecute, with 14 days allowed for objections. Wells signed a first amended complaint on October 25, 2026, and it was filed on November 2, 2026. That filing prompted the magistrate judge to issue the present order vacating the earlier findings and recommendations, while leaving the sufficiency of the amended pleading for later screening.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge vacated the October 28, 2026 Findings and Recommendations because Wells had submitted an amended complaint, and ordered that the amended complaint will be screened in due course. The vacatur is an effective disposition of the earlier findings and recommendations, not a recommendation to a district judge. The order did not dismiss the action, adopt the earlier findings and recommendations, or decide whether the amended pleading states a cognizable claim. It also told Wells that no further action is required of him until the court screens the amended complaint and issues a second screening order.
Although the court accepted the amended complaint for screening, it explained that the filing was untimely. The screening order was issued and served on October 1, 2026, and required an amended complaint within 21 days, making it due by October 22, 2026, plus time for mailing. Because Wells signed the amended complaint on October 25, 2026, the court calculated that it was submitted three days after the deadline even applying the prison mailbox rule, under which a pro se prisoner's pleading is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing. The court cautioned that untimely submissions may be stricken and instructed Wells to use the previously supplied Proof of Service form when submitting documents.
The court rejected any assumption that the 21-day period began when Wells received the screening order. It pointed to the order's language measuring the period from the date of service of the order and explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C) treats mailing to a party's last known address as completed service. The court also acknowledged that screening would take time, citing heavy judicial caseloads and the district's continuing judicial emergency.
Key Takeaways
- Filing an amended complaint led the magistrate judge to vacate the October 28 findings and recommendations that would have dismissed the action without prejudice.
- The amended complaint remains subject to screening, and this order does not determine whether it states a cognizable claim.
- The court treated the amended complaint as three days late even after applying the prison mailbox rule, because it was signed October 25 against an October 22 deadline plus mailing time.
- Wells was warned that untimely submissions may be stricken and that filings should include the required Proof of Service form showing when the document was turned over to prison authorities.
- No further action is required from Wells until the court completes screening of the amended complaint and issues a second screening order.
Why It Matters
The order preserves Wells's opportunity to pursue his § 1983 action through an amended pleading instead of allowing the dismissal recommendation to proceed to a final ruling. At the same time, it makes clear that accepting the late filing for screening is not a ruling on the merits of the amended complaint and does not relax the court's deadline requirements, which the order states are strictly enforced.
For pro se prisoner litigants, the decision distinguishes the 21-day deadline for submitting an amended complaint from the separate 14-day objection period attached to findings and recommendations. It also explains that the amendment period ran from service of the screening order, not from the prisoner's receipt of it, and that proof of the date a filing was given to prison authorities matters under the mailbox rule.