Perry v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

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).

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