Davis v. Schroeder et al
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/30/2012, ORDERING that plaintiff's 22 motion to amend is DENIED as moot; and plaintiff is granted leave to file a fourth amended complaint, not longer than 20 pages, within 30 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
JAMES L. DAVIS,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No. 2:10-cv-2972 MCE CKD P
vs.
SCHROEDER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his
original complaint on November 4, 2010, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.) The amended
17
complaint was screened and dismissed, and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended
18
complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was also screened and
19
dismissed, and plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint “not longer than 20
20
pages.” (Dkt. No. 16.) On May 22, 2012, plaintiff was granted a sixty-day extension of time to
21
file the third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 19.)
22
23
24
On June 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a document setting forth his objections to the
May 22, 2012 order. (Dkt. No. 21.) These objections are without merit.
On July 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, along with a
25
proposed amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23.) As the court earlier granted leave for plaintiff
26
to amend the complaint a third time, the court will deny this motion as moot. The court will refer
1
1
to the most recent amended complaint as the Third Amended Complaint.
2
Having screened and dismissed two lengthy pleadings by plaintiff, the court on
3
April 13, 2012 ordered that plaintiff was granted “leave to file a Third Amended Complaint not
4
longer than 20 pages within thirty days from the service of this order.” (Dkt. No. 16; emphasis in
5
original.) Plaintiff has disregarded this order by filing, effectively, a Third Amended Complaint
6
that is 64 pages long.
7
The court has neither the resources nor the inclination to screen a third lengthy,
8
confusing complaint by plaintiff containing numerous unrelated claims. As plaintiff has failed to
9
comply with the court’s order to limit his amended complaint to 20 pages, plaintiff will be given
10
one final chance to do so. Plaintiff is advised that if he again fails to abide by the court’s order,
11
the court will recommend that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff is also advised to review the
12
court’s earlier screening orders setting forth the requirement of a “short and plain” statement of
13
the claim.
14
Accordingly, IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
15
1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. No. 22) is denied as moot; and
16
2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint not longer than
17
20 pages within thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an amended
18
complaint, or to adhere to the page limit, will result in a recommendation that the action be
19
dismissed.
20
Dated: July 30, 2012
21
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
2
davi2972.amend2
26
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?