Vance Edward Johnson v. Barajas

Filing 16

ORDER Vacating Order to Show Cause and Granting Plaintiff Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint or Notify Court of Willingness to Proceed on Cognizable Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 08/26/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

12

Case No. 1:14-cv-01690 LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY
COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED
ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM

BARAJAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

On June 24, 2016, the Court screened the First Amended Complaint and determined that

20 Plaintiff stated a claim of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment
21 against Defendant Barajas. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to state any other claims.
22 Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed with the
23 cognizable claim, or in the alternative, file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of
24 the date of service of the order. Over thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to comply.
25 Accordingly, on August 9, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why
26 the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order.
27

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. Plaintiff states

28 he was out to court at the Santa Rita Jail in custody of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

1

1 at the time the Court’s orders were issued. Plaintiff states that while he was out to court he filed
2 a request for a sixty day extension of time of any pending deadlines in case no. 1:15-cv-19153 LJO-SAB. Plaintiff claims the Court wrongfully denied his request for an extension of time in
4 error. He further states the Court’s orders must have been lost during Plaintiff’s various moves
5 because he never received them.
6

The Court finds good cause to grant an extension of time in this case in light of Plaintiff’s

7 various address changes during the time the Court’s orders were issued. However, Plaintiff’s
8 attempt to place the blame on the Court for the filing of his motion is not well-taken. Plaintiff
9 filed a motion for an extension of time in case no. 1:15-cv-1915-LJO-SAB, but he did not file a
10 motion for extension of time in this case. The motion was addressed by the Court in that case as
11 it pertained to that case. Plaintiff states he referenced a number of cases within the body of his
12 motion; however, this is not the proper place to designate the case in which the document is to be
13 filed. Plaintiff must state the file number of the action in the caption appearing at the top of his
14 document. See Local Rule 133(g). The Clerk’s Office does not review the entire contents of
15 each document to determine where the document should be filed. The Clerk’s Office looks only
16 to the caption and title for this information. In the future, Plaintiff is advised that if he desires his
17 document to be filed in a specific case, he must identify the case number in the caption and title
18 of the document as provided in Local Rule 133(g).
19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20

1) The order to show cause of August 9, 2016, is VACATED, and

21

2) Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time of thirty days to comply with the Court’s
order of June 24, 2016.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 26, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2