Krzysztof Wolinski v. M. Colvin et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO DISREGARD AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/30/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/30/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
DISREGARD AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

v.

10

M. COLVIN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-00583-SI

12
13

On June 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (Docket No. 18.)

14

On October 10, 2017, the court extended the deadline for plaintiff to file his amended complaint to

15

December 8, 2017, and cautioned that “[t]his deadline will not be further extended because, by the

16

time it arrives, plaintiff will have had six months to prepare an amended complaint in which he is

17

only being asked to describe the facts that show his entitlement to relief.” (Docket No. 22.)

18

On October 12, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 23.) A week

19

later, plaintiff filed a request for the court to disregard that amended complaint, so that he could

20

file a second amended complaint. (Docket No. 24.) Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. (Docket

21

No. 24.) The amended complaint (Docket No. 23) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff must file a second

22

amended complaint no later than December 8, 2017. This deadline will not be further extended.1

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The court is concerned about the numerous delays caused by plaintiff in this action already, as it
seems to reflect a litigation pattern for plaintiff. This action was commenced in January 2016 in
Monterey County Superior Court, but defendants were not served until January 2017. (See Docket
No. 1 at 1.) After defendants removed the action to federal court in early February 2017, plaintiff
promptly informed this court that he wanted to object to the removal, but then took almost four
months to file a motion to remand the action to state court. (See Docket Nos. 10 and 11.) Plaintiff
also took almost five months to file his amended complaint, which he now asks the court to
disregard. (See Docket Nos. 18 and 23.) Dockets in other cases reflect similar delaying activity
by plaintiff occurred in other cases. Perhaps the most notable were the 20+ requests for extensions

1

Failure to file the second amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this

2

action.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of deadlines in his habeas action, Wolinski v. McDonald, C D. Cal. Case No. 2:11-cv-8649 JFW,
and six requests for extensions of time to request a certificate of appealability in the Ninth Circuit,
see Wolinski v. McDonald, Ninth Cir. No. 16-55077 (Jan. 30, 2017 order). In another civil rights
action, Wolinski v. McNary, C. D. Cal. Case No. 2:10-cv-4349 JFW, plaintiff was still trying to
amend his complaint for more than two years after filing the action, before voluntarily dismissing
the action.
2