Aguirre v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/08/13 ordering plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 17 is granted. Plaintiff's 1/03/13 amended complaint is deemed timely filed. Defendants' 12/10/12 motion to dismiss 13 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's 12/14/12 motion 15 is denied. Defendants shall file an answer or responsive motion within 14 days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CARLOS R. AGUIRRE,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-2165 KJN P

vs.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On December 10, 2012,

17

defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for

18

extension of time to file and serve an amended complaint in response to defendants’ motion to

19

dismiss. On January 3, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the same defendants

20

named in the original complaint. On January 4, 2013, defendants filed a statement of non-

21

opposition to plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file an amended complaint. Because

22

defendants do not object, the court grants plaintiff’s request for extension of time, and finds

23

plaintiff’s amended complaint to be timely filed. The pending motion to dismiss is based on the

24

original complaint; therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal.

25

On December 14, 2012, plaintiff re-filed the motion styled as a motion for class

26

certification, and asks the court to certify the complaint as a class action. However, plaintiff’s
1

1

prior motion was denied on October 17, 2012, because plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding

2

without counsel. (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff has not retained counsel. Thus, for the reasons set

3

forth in this court’s October 17, 2012 order, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (dkt. no. 17) is granted;

6

2. Plaintiff’s January 3, 2013 amended complaint (dkt. no. 21) is deemed timely

7

filed;

8
9

3. Defendants’ December 10, 2012 motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 13) is denied
without prejudice;

10

4. Plaintiff’s December 14, 2012 motion (dkt. no. 15) is denied; and

11

5. Defendants shall file an answer or responsive motion within fourteen days

12

from the date of this order.

13

DATED: January 8, 2013

14
15

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17

agui2165.36

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2