Clark v. Martel

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 12 Motion for Second Extension of Time for Leave to File Amended Complaint; denying 15 Motion Request for Order to the State Court to Rule on the Chilling Equals Harm Factor. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2012)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8
9

No. C 11-03520 YGR (PR)

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR SECOND EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND DENYING HIS
OTHER PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,
Defendant.

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. The Court previously granted

13

Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amended complaint. However, to date, Plaintiff has not

14

done so, and his amended complaint is presently overdue.

15

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Request for Refiling of Prior Request for

16

Extension of Time," which the Court construes as a request for a second extension of time to file his

17

amended complaint. (Docket No. 12.) Good cause appearing, this motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff

18

shall file his amended complaint no later than August 24, 2012. No further extensions of time will

19

be granted in this case absent extraordinary circumstances. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended

20

complaint by the deadline above, this action will be dismissed.

21

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, entitled "Notice of Finality of State Writ of

22

Habeas Corpus on the Religious Privilege Rule [and] Request for Order to the State Court to Rule on

23

the Chilling Equals Harm Factor." (Docket No. 15.) Plaintiff explains that, on February 14, 2012,

24

the Marin County Superior Court issued an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

25

He has attached a copy of the state court's denial for failure to state a prima facie claim for relief in

26

his petition, which alleged "that respondent Acting San Quentin Warden Michael Martel ('Warden'

27

or respondent) ha[d] signed a local San Quentin rule that has the effect of 'doing away with

28

"privileged" status of (non-threatening) speech with death row clergy." (Feb. 14, 2012 Marin

1

County Superior Court Order in Case No. SC178534A at 1.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests this

2

Court to "act upon this claim that the lower court has not actually addressed the claim, because that

3

court ignored 'chilling' as a form of harm, and thus, destroys the 'order' by the state superior court in

4

its Feb. 14, 2012, Order Denying the State Writ." (Pl.'s March 12, 2012 Mot. at 6.) To the extent

5

that Plaintiff is attempting to get this Court to order state court officials to conform their conduct to

6

state law (as opposed to federal law), the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal district court from

7

ordering state officials to conform their conduct with state law. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925

8

F.2d 1160, 1161-72 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts are without power to direct state courts or their

9

judicial officers in the performance of their duties). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 15)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is DENIED.

11

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 12 and 15.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED:

July 24, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Clark3520.grant-2ndEOT&addressMOT.wpd

2