Lopez v. Yates, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER Granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint and to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/27/12. Thirty Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

EMILIANO LOPEZ,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00107-LJO-GBC (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Doc. 27
/ THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

15
16

On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff Emiliano Lopez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

17

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging denial

18

of access to courts regarding child visitation and to challenge the $3,766.28 taken by child support

19

from his retirement. Doc. 1.

20

On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Doc. 10. On September 22,

21

2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case, for failure to state a claim, since Plaintiff did not allege

22

a denial of access to courts for a direct criminal appeal, habeas petition, or civil rights action, in

23

accordance with Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Doc. 14. On September 26, 2011, the

24

Ninth Circuit found that a prisoner could pursue a § 1983 access to courts claim for any case that has

25

a reasonable basis in law or fact. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2011). On

26

September 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s decision, noting that Plaintiff could

27

bring a claim alleging denial of access to courts for a child custody and child support case, in

28

accordance with Silva. Doc. 23. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Page 1 of 2

1

Id. On October 18, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued the formal mandate to this Court. Doc. 24.

2

On November 6, 2012, the Court found that Plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts which

3

indicate that Plaintiff suffered active interference by defendants. Silva, 658 F.3d at 1103-04

4

(emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiff had not established that defendants’ actions were the

5

proximate cause of actual prejudice to Plaintiff. Id. (emphasis added). The Court dismissed

6

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and

7

ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and

8

1915(e). Doc. 25.

9

As of December 17, 2012, Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s order or requested an

10

extension of time. As a result, there was no pleading on file that set forth any claims upon which

11

relief may be granted under § 1983, and the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that

12

this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon

13

which relief may be granted under § 1983 and for failure to prosecute. Doc. 26. On December 26,

14

2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a second amended complaint, stating he

15

failed to update his address with this Court. Doc. 27.

16

The Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a second

17

amended complaint. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to

18

file a second amended complaint and to file objections to the findings and recommendations.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:
7j8cce

December 27, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2