Carroll v. Spearman

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/19/2019 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 32 motion to reopen. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TREYMAYNE DEON CARROLL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0862 JAM DB P

v.

ORDER

SPEARMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

17
18

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims officials at High Desert State Prison failed

19

to provide him with safe living conditions in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

20

used excessive force, and retaliated against him.

21

On April 17, 2019, the District Judge adopted the undersigned’s recommendation that this

22

action be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint, judgment was entered, and this case

23

was closed. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to

24

file an amended complaint and requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 30.) The court

25

denied plaintiff’s motion and informed him it would not consider reopening this action unless

26

plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this action or a motion for relief from judgment along with a

27

proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.)

28

////
1

1

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reopen this case but has not filed a proposed amended

2

complaint. (ECF No. 32.) In the motion, plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel and

3

additional time to file a proposed amended complaint. In support of his requests he stated that he

4

has been transferred in retaliation for reporting sexual misconduct by prison officials.

5

The court is sympathetic to the difficulties facing inmate litigants; however, plaintiff is

6

still required to comply with court orders. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint on

7

July 25, 2017. (See ECF No. 7.) Since that date plaintiff has filed numerous motions (17, 18, 20,

8

25), and requested several extensions of time (ECF No. 10, 15, 25) that were granted (ECF Nos.

9

11, 16, 26), but he has yet to file an amended complaint. While the court did not grant plaintiff’s

10

most recent request for an extension of time (ECF No. 30), the court indicated it would consider

11

reopening this action if plaintiff were to file an appropriate motion along with a proposed

12

amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.)

13

The court will deny the present motion without prejudice because plaintiff did not file a

14

proposed amended complaint along with the motion. Plaintiff is instructed that the court will not

15

consider this motion, or any other motion filed by the plaintiff, until he submits an amended

16

complaint along with a motion to reopen.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen (ECF No. 32)

18

is denied without prejudice.

19

Dated: June 19, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DLB:12
DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner-Civil Rights/carr0862.mt.6.19

27
28
2