Cochran v. Wichita, Kansas, City of et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion 9 and Amended Motion 11 for Extension of Time to File his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file his Amended Complaint no later than 11/27/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 10/16/17. (adc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MICHAEL T. COCHRAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-1127-EFM-GEB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and his Amended Motion for Extension of
Time to File his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and was
granted the ability to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (Order, ECF No. 6). After
an August 23, 2017 hearing during which Plaintiff appeared in person, the Court ordered
him to file an amended complaint by October 25, 2017, to avoid a recommendation of
dismissal (ECF No. 7).
In that Order, the Court encouraged Plaintiff to use the Court’s standard Civil
Complaint form, a copy of which was attached to the Order (ECF No. 7-1). Plaintiff was
specifically informed that Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires him to state his claims “with brevity,
conciseness, and clarity.”1 In both the hearing, and in the Order, the Court warned
Plaintiff about the lack of clarity, verbosity, and the naming of unnecessary defendants in
1

Green v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 15-1288-EFM-KGG, 2016 WL 913151, at *2 (D. Kan.
Mar. 9, 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1215, 165 (3d ed. 2004)).

his original Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff was cautioned that, as a private citizen, he
has no authority to bring a criminal case.2 But in his attachment to his Motions for
Extension of Time (see “Notice of Intent”, ECF Nos. 9 and 11, Ex. A), he includes
considerable excerpts from the text of multiple criminal statutes and informs the court
and potential parties of his intent to file criminal charges. Plaintiff is cautioned that any
attempt to do so is likely to be dismissed.
The Court encourages Plaintiff to review, very carefully, the requirements
established in its previous Order (ECF No. 7). Given the length of time this case has
been on file, and the lack of progress thus far, Plaintiff’s requests for extension of time
are GRANTED IN PART, in that he will be permitted additional time to file his
amended pleading. However, his Motions are DENIED IN PART, in that he will only
be permitted 30 additional days—rather than the 60 days he seeks—in which to file his
Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and his Amended Motion for Extension of
Time to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) are GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff must file his Amended Complaint on or before

November 27, 2017. No further extensions will be granted.

2

Noel v. Elliot, No. 12-3116-SAC, 2012 WL 2120761, at *1 (D. Kan. June 12, 2012) (“As a
private citizen, plaintiff simply has no authority to prosecute criminal charges.”) (citing Andrews
v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007) and Mamer v. Collie Club of America, Inc., 229
F.3d 1164, *2 (Table)(10th Cir. 2000)(“private citizens cannot prosecute criminal actions”)).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2017.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge

3