McColm v. State of California et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING Motion at Docket 28, signed by District Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 9/9/16. (Hellings, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICIA A. McCOLM,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00580-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
AT DOCKET 28

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 28 Plaintiff Patricia A. McColm has moved for an extension of time
through January 18, 2017, within which to file her amended complaint, and request relief
from the requirement that she pay the filing fee. The Court notes that the record reflects
that the Complaint was initially dismissed with leave to amend on March 4, 2015.1 On
March 20, 2015, the Court granted McColm an additional 180 days within which to file her
amended complaint.2 On October 2, 2015, the Court grant a second extension through
January 8, 2016.3 On January 5, 2016, the Court granted a third extension through May 13,
2016.4 On May 11, 2016, the Court granted a fourth extension though September 12,
2016.5

1

Docket 13.

2

Docket 19.

3

Docket 21.

4

Docket 23.

5

Docket 26.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 28
McColm v. State of California, 1:14-cv-00580-RRB – 1

McColm sets for several bases necessitating the extension, including: a continuing
need for medical evaluation and treatment; failure of her computer/printer; lack of access
to records for research; and conflicts with other older time-sensitive matters. While this
Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation, at this point McColm has already been
granted a total in excess of one year within which to file her amended complaint.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court will extend the time within which Plaintiff
must file her amended complaint and pay the filing fee. Accordingly, on or before Friday,
January 13, 2017, Plaintiff must comply with the provisions of the Court’s Order at Docket
13, as modified by the Order at Docket 19.
Plaintiff is warned that further requests for an extension of time will not be
looked upon with favor. In the event that Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
and otherwise comply with the provisions of this Order within the time ordered by
the Court, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING MOTION AT DOCKET 28
McColm v. State of California, 1:14-cv-00580-RRB – 2