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)

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