Payne v. Gipson et al

Filing 20

Dismissal ORDER, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 8/19/15. Amended Complaint Deadline: 9/30/2015. (Verduzco, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MYRON A. PAYNE,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01557-RRB
Plaintiff,
DISMISSAL ORDER
vs.
C. GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 19 Plaintiff Myron A. Payne, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed a notice of intent to stand on his complaint and objecting to this
Court’s order dismissing certain claims and defendants. The procedural history of this case
is briefly recounted.
January 27, 2015: In screening the Complaint, the Court dismissed without leave
to amend Payne’s procedural due process claim and in its entirety as to certain
defendants. The Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend as to certain defendants
with respect to his claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”) .1
March 16, 2015: The Court granted Payne through May 2, 2015, within which to file
his amended Complaint.2

1

Docket 12.

2

Docket 14.

DISMISSAL ORDER.
Payne v. Gipson, 1:13-cv-01557-RRB – 1

June 2, 2015: The Court dismissed the action for failure to file an amended
complaint within the time allowed.3
June 8, 2015: Payne moved to set aside the dismissal and for reconsideration of
the Court’s January 27, 2015, Order. 4
July 8, 2015: The Court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, denied the
motion to the extent it sought reconsideration of the January 27 dismissal order, and
granted Payne through and including August 10, 2015, within which to file an amended
complaint.5
Instead of filing an amended complaint in accordance with the Court's Order, Payne
filed the current motion, which does nothing more than renew his earlier motion for
reconsideration. The Court having previously fully considered Payne’s arguments finds no
reason to vacate its prior Dismissal Order. To the extent that Payne purports to stand on
his original Complaint, the Court having dismissed it in its entirety with leave to amend,
there is no operative pleading before this Court upon which to stand.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that to the extent that Payne seeks further
reconsideration of this Court's dismissal of his action it is hereby DENIED.
Payne's continued failure to comply with the Order of the Court granting him leave
to file an amended complaint notwithstanding, the Court will grant Payne an additional
period of time to file his amended complaint. Accordingly, Payne is hereby granted through
3

Docket 15.

4

Docket 17.

5

Docket 18.

DISMISSAL ORDER.
Payne v. Gipson, 1:13-cv-01557-RRB – 2

and including September 30, 2015, within which to file an amended complaint consistent
with the Court's January 27, 2015 Dismissal Order.
Plaintiff is cautioned that requests for further extensions of time within which
to file an amended complaint will be viewed with disfavor; and granted only for
extenuating circumstances beyond plaintiff’s control. Plaintiff is further warned that
continued failure to timely comply with the Orders of this Court may result in
dismissal of this action without further notice to him. 6
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.
403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
DISMISSAL ORDER.
Payne v. Gipson, 1:13-cv-01557-RRB – 3