Quezada v. Sherman et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's First 14 Motion to Extend Time to File First Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc; ORDER on Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Exceed the 20 Page Limit; ORDER on Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Status signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/22/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALVARO QUEZADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

SHERMAN, et al.,

15

Defendant(s).

16

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00797 DAD JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT NUNC PRO TUNC
(Doc. 14)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
EXCEED THE 20 PAGE LIMIT
(Doc. 16)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
STATUS
(Doc. 17)

17
18
19

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file the First Amended

20

Complaint, (Doc. 14), which was filed on December 26, 2018, (Doc. 15). Along with the FAC,

21

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission for the FAC to exceed the 20-page limit. (Doc. 16.)

22

On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for status of the FAC. (Doc. 17.)1
The FAC was filed only a few days after the date it was due. (Compare Doc. 13 & Doc.

23
24

15.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is granted nunc pro tunc. Similarly,

25

though Plaintiff filed hundreds of pages of exhibits to the FAC, his allegations are 22 pages in

26

length, (see Doc. 15, pp. 9-31), exceeding the 20-page limit by a mere 2 pages which will be

27
1

28

Though filed on different dates, the latter two motions, (Docs. 16 & 17), were not entered on the docket for the
Court to see until January 18, 2019.

1

1

allowed just this once. The FAC has been placed in line for screening. Finally, Plaintiff’s motion

2

for status is granted in as much as this order resolves his request.2 All further requests from

3
4
5

Plaintiff inquiring into the status of this case shall not be filed; if errantly filed, they will be
summarily stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated:

7

January 22, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As stated in the First Informational Order, “[t]his Court screens pro se plaintiffs’ complaints as expeditiously as
possible. However, the Court has an extremely large number of pro se plaintiff civil rights cases pending before it,
and delay is inevitable. As long as a party keeps the Court informed of the party's current address, the Court will
provide notice of all actions which might affect the case as soon as an action is taken in the case. The Court will not
respond in writing to individual inquiries regarding the status of a case.” (Doc. 3, pp. 3-4.)
2

2