Endsley v. California Depart of State Hospitals
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/4/2017. The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 12/5/2017 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK ANTHONY LOWELL
ENDSLEY, and all other Non-LPS
patients who are or may be committed
to Napa State Hospital,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
No. C 16-4219 WHA
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
STATE HOSPITALS; EDMUND G.
BROWN; DOLLY MATTEUCCI;
Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Napa State Hospital, and he filed this civil rights complaint
pro se about problems in the law library, the access thereto, and the failure to treat civil
detainees better than prisoners. On November 22, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint with
leave to amend. However, plaintiff filed his claims on behalf of a a class, and his pro se and
detained status made him unfit to represent a class. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an
amended complaint binging his claims on his own behalf.
On February 22, 2017, he was granted an extension of time in which to amend his
complaint because he had filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals of the dismissal order. He was granted until April 1, 2017, or 28 days after a
decision on his interlocutory appeal, whichever came later. The Court of Appeals denied the
motion for an interlocutory appeal on March 4, 2017, but he filed a motion for rehearing en
banc, which was then denied on March 26, 2017. Plaintiff then petitioned the United States
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on July 23, 2017, and he awaits a decision on the petition.
He was then granted another estension of time, to and to October 15, 2017, or within 28 days of
the date his petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari is resolved,
whichever came later. Plaintiff was cautioned: “Failure to amend within the designated time
and in accordance with the order of dismissal with leave to amend result in the dismissal of this
case. No further extensions of time will be granted.” (ECF No. 19) (emphasis in original). The
Supreme Court denied the writ on October 24, 2017, and his deadline to amend the complaint
was November 21, 2017. Plaintiff did not heed the warning, and he did not file an amended
complaint by that deadline, and instead he asked for an even further extension of time.
Plaintiff has been given one year to prepare and file his amended complaint, and he has
not shown good cause for needing more time than that. The reason plaintiff gives for his latest
extension of time request is that he recently lost access to an operating type-writer or printer. As
he had not yet prepared the amended complaint, he states that he would have to submit a hand-
written amended complaint and make copies of that amended complaint for service upon
defendants, which he does not want to do “in this day and age.” This does not justify allowing
more amount to cause for more time because plaintiff was never required to file a typed
amended complaint or serve his amended upon defendants because they have not been served
with summons or appeared. Plaintiff knows this because he filed the present motion for an
extension of time written by hand and did not serve it on defendants. Plaintiff was cautioned
that he would not be given a further extension of time to file his amended complaint, and that
the case would be dismissed if he did not file an amended complaint in a timely manner. As he
has not done so, or shown good cause why not, the request for an extension of time is DENIED
and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing his claims in a complaint on his own
behalf and not in a pro se class action.
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?