Robinson v. City of St. Louis Division of Corrections et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson's Motion for Continuance 11 is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file an amended complaint, and DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURT HER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have to and including Friday, December 23, 2016 to file an amended complaint(Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 12/23/2016). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of this Cou rt's Prisoner Civil Rights complaint form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of this Court's October 4, 2016 and November 4, 2016 Orders (Docket Nos. 4 and 8). No further extensions of time will be given. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/2/16. (CAR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION HOSEA LEE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:16-cv-1535 RWS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson’s Motion for Continuance (Docket No. 11). Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 28, 2016, naming as defendants the City of St. Louis Division of Corrections, Corizon Health Services, St. Louis Justice Center, and Sheila Williamson, a medical supervisor. In the “statement of claim” portion of the complaint, plaintiff alleged that, from February 2016 to September 26, 2016, he requested but did not receive medical care for his chronic medical and dental needs, and was in daily pain. Plaintiff also alleged that grievances he filed were not properly addressed. For his claim for relief, plaintiff asked the Court to send him to his private medical care providers for treatment, and award him $1,500,000.00 in monetary damages. Upon review, the Court noted that the complaint failed to state a claim against Ms. Williamson and was frivolous as to the other defendants, and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by November 3, 2016. Plaintiff sought and received an extension of time, to November 25, 2016, to do so. On November 28, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant motion, in which he stated that he does not have access to the law library despite his assertions that he needs to work on his case. The Court will construe the instant motion as a motion for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s October 4, 2016 and November 4, 2016 Orders directing him to file an amended complaint. The motion will be granted to the extent plaintiff seeks additional time to file an amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be given. Plaintiff’s failure to submit an amended complaint within the time specified in this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson’s Motion for Continuance (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file an amended complaint, and DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have to and including Friday, December 23, 2016 to file an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of this Court’s Prisoner Civil Rights complaint form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to plaintiff a copy of this Court’s October 4, 2016 and November 4, 2016 Orders (Docket Nos. 4 and 8). No further extensions of time will be given. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016. RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?