Lomeli v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 15

ORDER partially granting MOTION for EXTENSION of Time 14 , ( Amended Complaint due by 4/30/2009) signed by District Judge Frederick J. Martone on 4/6/09. (Gil-Garcia, A)

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
JDDL

MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) California Department of Corrections, et) ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) Gavino Lomeli,

No. CV 1-08-1575-FJM ORDER

Plaintiff Gavino Lomeli, who is confined in the California State Prison-Corcoran in Corcoran, California, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a February 12, 2009 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an Amended Complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. I. Pending Motion On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. #14) seeking a 60-day extension of time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks the extension because he has a "2.3 reading level" and is attempting to find someone to help him prepare his amended complaint. The Court, in its discretion, will partially grant Plaintiff's request for an extension of time--the Court will grant Plaintiff an additional 45 days to file an amended complaint in

28

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
JDDL

compliance with the Court's February 12, 2009 Order. Given the age of this case, no further extensions shall be granted II. Warnings A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83-182(f) and 83-183(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. B. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5-133(d)(2). Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff. C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order and the Court's February 12, 2009 Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. #14) is partially granted. Plaintiff has until April

30, 2009 to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Order and the Court's February 12, 2009 Order. (2) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by April 30, 2009, the Clerk of

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice. DATED this 6th day of April, 2009.

-2-