JeanLouise Hallal et al v. Seroka et al

Filing 12

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for 60-Day Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 11 ) - Thirty Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/22/2018. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time t o file an amended complaint, (Doc. 11 ) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file her first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action may be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.(Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SEROKA, FRANK BRIONES, TAM LE
)
CURTIS BOUCHE, DEWALL, and STEVEN
)
MOORE ,
)
Defendants.
)
)
JEANLOUISE HALLAL,

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0388-DAD-BAM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. 11)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff JeanLouise Hallal is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action
originally filed on March 22, 2018.

19

On July 20, 2018, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first

20

amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of that order. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff’s first

21

amended complaint is currently due on or before August 23, 2018.

22

On August 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting a sixty-day extension of time to

23

file her amended complaint. (Doc. 11.). Plaintiff states that she was recently “terroristically attacked

24

by the Fresno County District Attorney” which resulted in a false eviction from her home. Plaintiff needs

25

additional time to “research this matter and put the brief together without any interruptions.” (Doc. 11).

26

Although Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s request, the Court

27
28

finds a response unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).
Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to grant, in part, Plaintiff’s motion
1

1

for an extension of time. While not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to allege

2

new and unrelated claims in her amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that, as stated in the Court’s

3

July 19, 2018 screening order, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated

4

claims in her amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot”

5

complaints).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, (Doc. 11)

7

is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file her first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from

8

the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

9

this order, this action may be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 22, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2