Atterbury v. Daly

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 10 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
DANNY F. ATTERBURY,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
DENISE DALY,
14
Defendant.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-2387 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a former civil detainee at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), proceeding pro se, filed

17

an amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2011, the Court

18

served the amended complaint upon Defendant Daly.

19

Defendant has filed a motion for extension of time to file her motion for summary

20

judgment. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. She shall file her motion for summary judgment

21

no later than January 25, 2012. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed no later than thirty days

22

thereafter. Defendant shall file her reply within fifteen days of the filing date of Plaintiff’s

23

opposition.

24

Plaintiff has filed a “Response to Defendant’s Answer to First Amended Complaint, and

25

Motion to Submit Second Amended Complaint due to Pro Se Status.” (Docket No. 10.) In

26

reviewing the document, however, it appears that what Plaintiff wishes to amend are his requests

27

for relief. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to supplement his amended complaint to include

28
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Atterbury387misc

1
2

injunctive relief, such a request is GRANTED.
To the extent Plaintiff wishes to file an entirely new document, i.e., a second amended

3

complaint, the request is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to file a second

4

amended complaint, he may move for leave to amend, but must include a proposed second

5

amended complaint. Without a proposed second amended complaint, the Court cannot properly

6

determine whether an amendment is necessary or warranted. Plaintiff is advised that “a plaintiff

7

waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the

8

amended complaint.” See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

9
10
11
12

This order terminates docket numbers 8 and 10.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/14/11
DATED:
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint
2
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Atterbury387misc