Venable v. Stainer et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 20 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/22/17. 20-Day Deadline for Plaintiff to File New Motion for Extension of Time. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
M.D. STAINER, et al.,
1:16-cv-00589 GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF Nos. 20, 21)
20-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO
FILE NEW MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 10.)
Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California,
the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment
to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
On January 12, 2017, and February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed motions to extend time to file
an amended complaint, pursuant to the court’s order issued on June 17, 2016.
These are Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth motions for extension of time. Plaintiff asserts that he
is a novice in the law and needs more access to the law library before he can file the amended
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to grant him another extension of time to
file the amended complaint. It has been more than seven months since the court issued its order
requiring Plaintiff to file the amended complaint.
The court’s order gave Plaintiff ample
guidance, explaining at length why Plaintiff’s complaint was deficient and how to cure the
deficiencies. Plaintiff does not need to conduct extensive research at the law library to prepare
the amended complaint. Plaintiff was given the applicable law in the court’s order. As instructed
by the order, Plaintiff needs to file an amended complaint alleging the facts of his case in detail,
explaining what happened and what he knows.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time shall be denied, without prejudice to
renewal of the motion within twenty days. Plaintiff shall be granted twenty days in which to file
a new motion for extension of time, showing good cause. No further extensions shall be granted
without a showing of good cause.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, filed on January 12, 2017, and February
10, 2017, are DENIED, without prejudice;
Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of service in which to file a new
motion for extension of time, showing good cause; and
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case
without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 22, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?