Filing 13

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint. Amended Complaint due 1/4/2013.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/18/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ig, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ANTHONY A. PERRY, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., 15 No. C 12-03534 DMR Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 On November 21, 2012, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Anthony A. Perry’s application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. [Docket No. 9.] The 19 court granted Plaintiff until December 10, 2012 to file an amended complaint. On December 10, 20 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file the amended complaint, asserting that 21 he needs additional time to learn the names of the defendants so that he may specifically name them 22 in the amended complaint. [Docket No. 12.] 23 In his original complaint, Plaintiff named a large number of individual defendants. However, 24 Plaintiff only connected individually-named defendants to those claims that the court found time- 25 barred. With respect to the remaining claims, which the court dismissed with leave to amend, 26 Plaintiff did not connect any individually-named defendants to the incidents upon which those 27 claims were based. Accordingly, in amending his complaint, Plaintiff should set forth facts linking 28 the specific defendants he names to the alleged violation of his rights, in accordance with the court’s 1 order dismissing the complaint. If Plaintiff is not able to name one or more defendants when he files 2 his amended complaint, he should provide sufficient information to enable the court and his 3 opponents to know who he is trying to identify. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 4 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that although the plaintiff did not know the name of the officer he sought to 5 name as a defendant, the plaintiff informed the court that the officer’s identity could be determined 6 “by inspecting the ‘parole papers that the plaintiff signed at the time of his release’ and the ‘Duty 7 Roster for that day.’”). Plaintiff is hereby granted until January 4, 2013 to file an amended 8 complaint. 9 S 13 DONNA M. RYU onna M. Ryu United Statesge D Jud Magistrate Judge ER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A H 15 LI 14 R NIA Dated: December 18, 2012 DERED O OR IT IS S FO UNIT ED 12 RT For the Northern District of California 11 NO United States District Court IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 10 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?