Schneider v. Amador County et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/26/11 ORDERING that plaintiff's 37 request for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED; and the amended complaint is due by 12/16/11. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's amended complaint within 14 days from the date a second amended complaint is filed. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

No. CIV S-10-3242 GEB EFB PS

vs.
AMADOR COUNTY; LINDA
VAN VLECK; JOHN HAHN; and
DOES 1 through 40,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER

16
17

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On

19

September 29, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted plaintiff

20

thirty days to file a second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 36.

21

On October 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a stay, or in the alternative, for a thirty

22

day extension of time to file his second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 37. Plaintiff contends

23

that on October 13, 2011, he “was forced to defend himself” in a hearing in Amador County

24

regarding the potential seizure of his two horses pursuant to California Penal Code section

25

597.1(a). Id. at 2; see also Cal. Penal Code 597.1(a) (“Every owner, driver, or keeper of any

26

animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any
1

1

city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a

2

misdemeanor.”). Plaintiff contends that a hearing was held and that after hearing testimony from

3

multiple witnesses, the prosecution dismissed the case. Id. However, plaintiff contends that he

4

“does not yet have any record, or findings from this hearing,” and that he needs the findings in

5

order to properly file his second amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff further contends that “[d]ue to

6

these events and the citation leading up to them, plaintiff . . . was not able to devote any time to

7

‘researching and preparing his [second amended complaint].” Id. Therefore, plaintiff requests

8

that this case “be stayed for a reasonable amount of time (120-180 days?)” until Amador County

9

can furnish plaintiff with the findings from the October 13 hearing. Id. at 3. In the alternative,

10
11

plaintiff seeks a thirty day extension of time to file his second amended complaint. Id.
Although a stay of this action is not warranted at this time, plaintiff’s request for an

12

extension of time to file a second amended complaint will be granted. If plaintiff needs

13

additional time beyond the extension provided herein within which to file his second amended

14

complaint, he may file a further motion for an extension of time prior to the new deadline for

15

filing his second amended complaint.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint, Dckt.

18
19
20
21
22
23

No. 37, is granted;
2. Plaintiff has until December 16, 2011 to file a second amended complaint, as provided
in the September 29, 2011 order;
3. Failure to timely file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will
result in a recommendation this action be dismissed; and
4. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within fourteen days

24

from the date a second amended complaint is filed.

25

DATED: October 26, 2011.

26
2