Saunders v. Saunders et al

Filing 57

ORDER that Plaintiff Shall File a Proposed Third Amended Complaint on or before December 27, 2011, signed by District Judge Raner Collins on 09/27/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Jason Saunders,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Jerry Saunders, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 1-05-0699-RCC
ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff Jason Saunders filed a pro se prisoner civil rights action of June 1, 2005 and

17

a First Amended Complaint on September 12, 2005. (Docs. 1 & 9). The Court dismissed

18

the First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,

19

but granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

20

Complaint on January 30, 2007, and the Court dismissed it for the same reasons as the first,

21

also with leave to amend. (Docs. 27 & 39). The Court gave Plaintiff until May 27, 2009 to

22

file a Third Amended Complaint, and when Plaintiff failed to do so, the Court dismissed this

23

action on June 10, 2009. (Docs. 41 & 42).

24

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and argued he had timely filed a Motion for

25

Extension of Time, which the Court never received. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff attached a copy of

26

the motion, but the Court denied relief because Plaintiff provided no proof of mailing. (Doc.

27

46). Plaintiff moved again for reconsideration, but the Court denied relief because Plaintiff

28

still had not provided proof of mailing. (Docs. 47 & 48).

1

Plaintiff has now provided proof of mailing and asks the Court again to reconsider

2

dismissal of this action. (Docs. 49 & 51). While this proof of mailing is sufficient, the Court

3

notes Plaintiff has not provided a proposed Third Amended Complaint. As explained in the

4

Order denying Plaintiff’s first request for reconsideration, the Court cannot find any injury

5

justifying relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(6) without a proposed Third Amended

6

Complaint. (Doc. 46). In the interests of judicial economy and a fully developed record, the

7

Court will require Plaintiff to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint.1

8

In addition, in consideration of the age of this case and significant delays already

9

present in the record, the Court’s will exercise its inherent authority to manage its docket in

10

order to move this action more swiftly towards resolution. Plaintiff is advised that the Court

11

is not inclined to grant any further extensions of time. Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff shall filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint on or

13

before December 27, 2011.

14

Reconsideration (Doc. 49) ready for ruling on the following day.

15

The Court will deem Plaintiff’s Third Motion for

DATED this 27th day of September, 2011.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that, contrary to its August 5, 2011 Order, summary disposition of
the motion is not available because Defendants have not yet been served.
-2-