Bolton v. Holland et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause and GRANTING Plaintiff One Final Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/6/17. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form) (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WAYNE BOLTON, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 v. KIM HOLLAND, et al., Defendants. 1:16-cv-00298-SKO (PC) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF ONE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docs. 21, 22) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff, Wayne Bolton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2017, the Court issued an 17 order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and 18 granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 18.) 19 On March 29, 2017, an order issued granting Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty (30) day extension of 20 time to file a first amended complaint. (Docs. 19, 20.) 21 On May 8, 2017, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause within thirty (30) days why 22 this action should not be dismissed based on his failure to state a claim and to obey the court’s 23 order since Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. (Doc. 21.) Alternatively, Plaintiff was 24 allowed to file an amended complaint within that deadline. (Id.) Plaintiff’s response was filed on 25 May 31, 2017. (Doc. 22.) 26 Plaintiff’s explanation for not filing an amended complaint is that he “is in an institution 27 with minimal access to the law library which is very difficult” for one like him, proceeding pro 28 se. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff states that the deficiency which made his claims not cognizable can be 1 1 cured by amendment and requests another extension of time. (Id.) Plaintiff does not provide an 2 explanation for not filing an amended complaint within the extensions of time he has been 3 4 5 6 7 8 granted. (Id.) The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that, as an inmate, he does not have unrestricted access to conduct legal research. However, the order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint provided him with all of the pleading and legal standards required to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must apply the factual allegations, based on circumstances he personally experienced, to the standards set forth in that order. Plaintiff will be provided another copy of the screening order and one last extension of time to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 The order to show cause, which issued on May 31, 2017, (Doc. 21), is DISCHARGED; 11 2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order in 12 which to file a first amended complaint; 13 3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form and a copy of 14 the screening order that issued on February 22, 2017 (Doc. 18); and 15 4. 16 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 6, 2017 /s/ 20 Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?