Schaefer v. Rowland et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/09/16 ordering plaintiff's motions for an extension of time 19 and 24 are granted. Plaintiff's motion to stay 23 is denied. Plaintiff is granted 21 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint will result in a dismissal of this action. No further extensions of time will be granted. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL T. SCHAEFER,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1802 DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

T. ROWLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

19

judge. ECF No. 5.

20

On October 15, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd screened plaintiff’s complaint

21

and dismissed it with leave to amend for failure to state a claim; plaintiff was granted thirty days

22

to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Over 45 days later, on December 3, 2015, plaintiff filed

23

a motion for a 90-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 12. He sought

24

this continuance because of two recent hospitalizations that prevented him from timely

25

responding to the court’s order. On December 15, 2015, plaintiff’s motion was granted, and he

26

was directed to file an amended complaint within 90 days from the date of the order. ECF No. 15.

27

In light of this 90-day extension of time, plaintiff was informed that no further extensions of time

28

would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

1

On May 19, 2016, well beyond the 90-day deadline, plaintiff filed a second motion for

2

extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 17. The court granted a 30-day

3

extension on May 27, 2016, but advised plaintiff that no further extensions of time would be

4

granted. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file an amended complaint may

5

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order and failure to

6

prosecute.

7

Plaintiff has now filed two more motions for extension of time to file an amended

8

complaint, as well as a motion to stay this action. ECF Nos. 19, 23, 24. Plaintiff’s recent filings

9

reveal that he was placed in a crisis bed on June 6, 2016, for threatening a staff member, and that,

10

upon his release five days later, he received some but not all of his legal documents. Plaintiff,

11

however, does not explain how these legal documents are relevant to the retaliation and excessive

12

force claims asserted in this action. It has now been one year since plaintiff’s complaint was

13

dismissed, and he has yet to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff is unable to prosecute this

14

action at this time, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 41(a).

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (ECF Nos. 19, 24) are granted;

18

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 23) is denied; and

19

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order in which to file an

20

amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

21

dismissal of this action. No further extensions of time will be granted.

22

Dated: November 9, 2016

23
24
25
/DLB7;scha1802.eot+stay
26
27
28
2