Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01291/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01291-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01291-JSW 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 

PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. On July 30, 2015, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it contained 

a vast number of improperly joined claims against many different Defendants. He was granted 28 

days to file the amended complaint, but thereafter received two extensions of that deadline — one 

in October 2015 and one in January 2016. His amended complaint was due on February 16, 2016. 

He has not amended his complaint nor has he shown good cause for his failure to do so in the sixplus months allotted to him. Accordingly this case is DISMISSED. 

On January 25, 2016, and May 16, 2016, he filed two motions to “compel” the Court to 

mail him a copy of his complaint so he can amend it. He alleges that his mother paid the 

“California Legal Support Group” to send him a “copy of this case” in approximately March 2016, 

but he has not received it. This does not show cause for his failure to timely amend his complaint. 

He does not explain why he did not keep a copy of the complaint for himself, nor does he explain 

why he waited approximately six months after the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 

— i.e. until January 2016 — before he first requested a copy of the complaint. Even if he paid a 

third party to procure it for him, as he alleges, he does not explain why he waited another two 

months — i.e. until approximately March 2016 — before doing so. He also does not explain why 

Case 4:15-cv-01291-JSW Document 22 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

he never wrote to the Clerk of Court requesting a copy of the complaint. In any event, Plaintiff 

indicates in his first motion to compel that he “cured” the improper joinder of his original 

complaint by filing two other civil actions (Case Nos. 15-5136 JD and 15-5135 JD); as a result, it 

appears that he is pursuing his claims in different actions. The motions to “compel” (ECF Nos. 

19, 21) are DENIED. If Plaintiff still wants a copy of his complaint or any other filings in this 

action, he may obtain such a copy by completing a request for photocopies form and submitting it 

to the Clerk of Court, or by writing a letter to the Clerk of Court requesting such a form. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion “for discovery under Rule 56(f)” requesting that the Court 

“delay its ruling” until he has obtained a “production of documents” from the Court. It is unclear 

what ruling he seeks to delay. In any event, he may not obtain discovery from the Court. The 

proper way to obtain documents from the Court is to request photocopies from the Clerk of Court, 

as described above. The motion for “discovery” (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2016

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01291-JSW Document 22 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 2