Moore v. Hatton et al

Filing 8

ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/9/2020. Amended Complaint due by 10/8/2020. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020)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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 JOHNNY ANDREW MOORE, Plaintiff, v. 13 14 15 Case No. 20-01445 BLF (PR) ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT S. HATTON, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed a pro se complaint in Monterey County Superior 19 Court, which Defendants removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(b). Dkt. 20 No. 1. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ request to screen the complaint, 21 dismissed the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim as barred by res judicata, 22 and dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 7 at 3- 23 4. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the 24 date the order was filed. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was also advised that in the alternative, he may 25 file notice in the same time provided that he wishes to strike all the federal claims from 26 this action and have the matter remanded back to state court to pursue the sole state law 27 claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 5. 28 To date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in this matter. However, the Court notes that 1 Plaintiff filed two motions requesting an extension of time “to prepa[re] response to order 2 granting motion for dismissal with leave to amend complaint” in a different case which is 3 closed. See Moore v. Hatton, et al., Case No. 17-03696 BLF (PR), Dkt. Nos. 35, 38. 4 Apparently, Plaintiff has his case numbers confused. Accordingly, in the interest of 5 justice, the Court will sua sponte grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended 6 complaint in this matter. 7 Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file 8 an amended complaint using the court’s form complaint to attempt to state sufficient facts 9 to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 20-01445 BLF (PR), and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must not make any 12 reference to Case No. 17-03696 BLF, which is a closed matter, to avoid any further 13 delays in this matter. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the 14 action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the 15 original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original complaint. Claims not 16 included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an 17 amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 18 (9th Cir.1992). 19 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 20 complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without 21 prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __September 9, 2020_______ ________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 24 25 26 Order Granting EOT to File Am. Compl. PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\01445Moore_eot-ac 27 28 2

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?