Calloway v. Adams et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING Motion at Docket 27 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 9/3/14: October 3, 2014 ddl for Amended Complaint or Updated Status Report. (Hellings, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01281-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION AT DOCKET 27

vs.
D. G. ADAMS, Warden, Corcoran State
Prison, et al,
Defendants.

At Docket 27 Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway moved for a stay order in this
matter. Although Plaintiff may have shown cause for a further extension of time within
which to file an amended complaint, he has not shown good cause for an indefinite stay
of these proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion Requesting a Stay Order on Pending Case
Above Until the Adjudication of Crisis and Housing Problems is Settled at Docket 27 is
DENIED.
On the other hand, Calloway has shown sufficient good cause for a further
extension of time within which to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Court’s
Dismissal Order entered on February 13, 2014. Therefore, on before October 3, 2014,
and every thirty (30) days thereafter, Plaintiff must file either: (1) an Amended Complaint;

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 27
Calloway v. Adams, 1:11-cv-01281-RRB – 1

or (2) an updated status report setting forth the reason(s) he is unable to file an amended
complaint in compliance with the Court’s Dismissal Order.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2014.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Docket 13. In that Order this Court, although expressing doubt that Calloway
could adequately truthfully plead an Eighth Amendment claim based upon his alleged
denial of an adequate renal diet, ice chips, hypoallergenic soap, shampoo, and
moisturizing lotion, nonetheless granted Calloway leave to amend. All other claims, i.e.,
his request for a transfer, denial of a renal transplant, and forced medical treatment, were
dismissed without leave to amend. Calloway is reminded that his amended complaint must
be limited to his Eighth Amendment claim, no other.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 27
Calloway v. Adams, 1:11-cv-01281-RRB – 2