Centeno v. John Doe, et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Amend the Complaint signed by District Judge Frederick J. Martone on 8/4/2010. (Bradley, A)

(PC) Centeno v. John Doe, et al

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ernesto Centeno, Plaintiff, vs. David Wilson, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:08-CV-1435-FJM ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's second motion to amend the complaint (doc. 22). Plaintiff's original complaint was filed on September 24, 2008, almost two years ago. On April 6, 2010, plaintiff filed his first motion to amend the complaint, which we denied on the basis of futility. Once again plaintiff moves to amend the complaint, this time attempting to generally bolster his claims and to reassert claims against B. Teesdale who has already been dismissed from this case (doc. 10). In our Rule 16 scheduling order, we set April 25, 2010 as the deadline to amend the complaint and join additional parties (doc. 15). That deadline has long since expired. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. 22). DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

Dockets.Justia.com