Goldstein v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 37

ORDER re 36 Letter filed by Darryl Lee Goldstein. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/18/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1983. In an Order dated July 29, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in order to cure the pleading deficiencies of his RLUIPA and retaliation claims. The Court also directed Plaintiff to explain whether he exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his RLUIPA and retaliation claims before he filed his complaint. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's remaining claims for failure to state a claim. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint within thirty days, this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. In an Order dated September 3, 2008, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the thirty-day time frame. On September 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for a fourteen-day extension of time to file his amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff was supposed to file his amended complaint Plaintiff Darryl Lee Goldstein filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. / DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, No. C 05-03209 SBA (PR) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 by August 28, 2008, thirty days after the July 29, 2008 Order was issued. Plaintiff claims that "[his] health and two hospital stays prevented [him] from bringing the brief in on time." (Pl.'s Req. at 1.) He alleges that he was hospitalized from September 1, 2008 through September 2, 2008, and he submits documentation to prove his allegation. However, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations meritless because the deadline to file his amended complaint had already passed during the dates he was hospitalized. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (docket no. 36). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 9/18/08 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Goldstein3209.DenyEOT2 mend.wpd a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV05-03209 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on September 22, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Darryl Lee Goldstein 101 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Dated: September 22, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.05\Goldstein3209.DenyEOT3 mend.wpd a

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?