Peasley v. Spearman, et al

Filing 406

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO RECONSIDER; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR STAY Re: Dkt. Nos. 399 , 400 , 404 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on October 27, 2022. Response due by 11/7/2022. (dts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 4:15-cv-01769-JSW Document 406 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID SCOTT PEASLEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01769-JSW

v.
M. SPEARMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO
RECONSIDER; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR STAY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 399, 400, 404

12
13

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. Defendants have filed a motion for

14

summary judgment on his sole remaining claim (Count 6). Plaintiff has filed an opposition. The

15

reply brief is due on or before November 7, 2022.

16

Plaintiff has filed motion to amend the complaint, to reconsider a prior order denying a

17

prior motion for leave to amend, and a motion to stay. Plaintiff has still not submitted a proposed

18

amended complaint. Plaintiff was informed three times recently that his motions for leave to

19

amend were denied because he did not submit a proposed amended complaint. Nevertheless, he

20

has continued to move for leave to amend his complaint without submitting the amended

21

complaint he proposes to file. Without a proposed amended complaint, the Court cannot discern

22

whether his claims are cognizable or leave file the amended complaint should be granted. He

23

cannot continue to do so. No further motion for leave to amend may be filed without a proposed

24

amended complaint. The motion for leave to amend and to reconsider are DENIED.

25

Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay ruling on the motion for summary judgment. He claims

26

it was not served upon him. The proof of service indicates that various exhibits were served upon

27

Plaintiff by mail, but the motion itself was not; it was simply filed electronically. Plaintiff’s

28

opposition responds to various arguments by Defendants, but it is not clear whether or not Plaintiff

Case 4:15-cv-01769-JSW Document 406 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 2

1

has had access to the electronically filed motion. On or before November 7, 2022, Defendants

2

shall either explain why the motion was not served upon Plaintiff by mail and whether or not

3

Plaintiff has been able to access the electronically filed documents at his prison, or serve the

4

motion upon Plaintiff by mail, file a proof of such service, and file a stipulation to extend the

5

deadlines for Plaintiff to supplement his opposition.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2022

8
9
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

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
2