Crayton v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 226

AMENDED ORDER regarding 225 Order on Motion for Extension signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 9/20/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TIMOTHY CRAYTON,

No. C 08-00621 WHA (PR)

10
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
EXTENSION OF TIME

v.
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
11
12
13

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
HEDGPETH, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a California prisoner
17
proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time to file a
18
second amended complaint and/or separate lawsuit. He argues that he has four other lawsuits
19
he is currently prosecuting and must split his typewriter time between all five lawsuits.
20
In the court’s May 1, 2012 order, the court found cognizable eight federal claims.
21
Specifically, in Claim 7, plaintiff claimed that, on July 3, 2008, defendants Hedgpeth,
22
Harrington, and Captain Woods were deliberately indifference to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar.
23
In Claim 8, plaintiff claims that, on December 9, 2008, and December 11, 2008, defendants
24
Hedgpeth and Harrington were deliberately indifference to plaintiff’s need for a grab bar. In
25
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, plaintiff alleges that other defendants separately, and in
26
groups, violated RICO, and engaged in retaliation and tampering.
27
On August 7, 2012, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss misjoined
28
defendants and claims. The court found that Claims 7 and 8, raising claims of deliberate

1

indifference, were properly joined, and could proceed without violating Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure 18 or 20. However, the court dismissed Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 without

3

prejudice to re-filing in a separate lawsuit. The court directed defendants to file a dispositive

4

motion within ninety days of the filing date of the order. Alternatively, the court ordered

5

plaintiff to file a second amended complaint only if he wished to litigate the RICO and/or

6

retaliation and tampering claims instead of the deliberate indifference claims. The court did not

7

specify a deadline in which plaintiff should file any separate lawsuit.

8

In light of plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, the court will grant him an

9

extension. Should plaintiff wish to proceed with Claims 7 and 8, he need not file anything until
defendants have filed their dispositive motion. Plaintiff may file new and separate lawsuits

11
For the Eastern District of California

United States District Court

10

regarding dismissed Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 at a later date. Only if plaintiff wishes to

12

proceed with one or more of the claims dismissed in the court’s August 7, 2012 order, should he

13

file a second amended complaint specifying the claim(s). Plaintiff should remember that in

14

order to bring multiple claims in a single lawsuit, however, plaintiff must demonstrate that the

15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the claims to be brought in a single lawsuit. Any

16

further attempt to raise unrelated claims against different defendants in a single lawsuit

17

may result in all the claims being dismissed.

18

If plaintiff wishes to proceed with Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, or 17 instead of Claims 7

19

and 8, plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the filing date of

20

this order. Failure to file a second amended complaint within thirty days, and in

21

accordance with this order, will result in the court proceeding on only plaintiff’s

22

deliberate indifference claims.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September

20

, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
C:\Documents and Settings\USDC\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\CRAYTON621eot5.wpd

28
2