Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 12

ORDER Disregarding Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 07/18/14. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 M. McCABE, et al., 15 Case No. 1:13cv01779 AWI DLB (PC) ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Document 11) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 18 in this civil rights action.1 Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013. 19 On March 26, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated certain 20 cognizable claims. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either amend his complaint or notify the Court of 21 his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. In screening his complaint, the Court 22 determined that Plaintiff’s due process and access to the courts claims were unrelated to the subject 23 matter of this action. 24 On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an amended complaint and an 25 “objection.” The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on May 6, 2014, but noted that an order requiring 26 objections had not issued and objections were therefore not warranted. 27 1 28 Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, on December 19, 2013, the Court determined that Plaintiff met the imminent danger exception for purposes of 1915(g). 1 1 2 3 On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff chose to amend and the complaint is therefore awaiting screening. Also on July 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Motion for Clarification of 4 Objection.” Plaintiff states that the “objection” he referenced in his request for an extension of time 5 was actually an appeal. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to appeal the Court’s March 26, 6 2014, order insofar as it dismissed the due process and access to courts claims. 7 8 The March 26, 2014, order, however, is not an appealable order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is disregarded. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis July 18, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?