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)

Download PDF
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

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?