Arceo v. DVI, et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/29/2019 GRANTING 84 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff granted 30 days from the date of this order to file objections to 81 Findings and Recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY ARCEO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a second

18

motion for extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has

19

demonstrated good cause for a second extension of time, and such request is granted.

20

That said, the undersigned observes that in the request for second extension plaintiff

21

discusses the standards governing a motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 84 at 5.) Although

22

plaintiff is correct that the Federal Rules contemplate granting leave to amend more liberally to

23

pro se plaintiffs, plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend on several occasions. On

24

March 18, 2016, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff not be granted further leave to

25

amend. (ECF No. 28 at 29.) Such recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 31.)

26

Despite such order, plaintiff again sought leave to amend. Plaintiff was denied leave to amend by

27

the district court on July 24, 2017. (ECF No. 62.) In the underlying findings and

28

recommendations, the court expressly found that plaintiff failed to meet the standards necessary

1

to warrant amendment in this case filed in 2011. (ECF No. 61 at 11-14.) Moreover, the pretrial

2

motions deadline expired on March 30, 2018. (ECF No. 70.)

3

Therefore, plaintiff is cautioned that although he is granted an extension of time in which

4

to file objections, he is not granted leave to file an amended pleading. Rather, plaintiff is only

5

granted an extension of time to file objections to the January 29, 2019 findings and

6

recommendations addressing defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The time for seeking

7

leave to amend in this 2011 case has expired.1

8

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 84) is granted; and

10

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to

11

the January 29, 2019 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time will be

12

granted.

13

Dated: March 29, 2019

14
15
16
/arce2396.36b

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is reminded that although the court previously declined to recommend dismissal of this
action as a sanction for plaintiff’s violation of the court’s order (ECF No. 61 at 12), the court has
discretion to impose such terminating sanctions should he continue to violate court orders. Local
Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
2