Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00479/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00479-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATROY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LANCE ARAKAKI, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00479-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 26) AND MOTION 

FOR FREE COPY OF COURT DOCUMENT 

(ECF No. 27).

Plaintiff Latroy Taylor (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, initiated this action on April 4, 

2014. (ECF No. 1.) On August 28, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff forty-five days from the 

date of service of that order to comply with its August 5, 2015 screening order dismissing his

second amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 25). The Court also struck from the 

record Plaintiff’s unsigned motion requesting a free copy of a court document. (Id. at 2.)

Currently before the Court are (1) another motion by Plaintiff for an extension of time to 

amend his complaint, dated August 25, 2015 and filed August 31, 2015; and (2) another motion 

by Plaintiff for a free copy of a court document, dated August 25, 2015 and filed August 31, 

2015. It appears these motions and the Court’s August 28, 2015 order crossed in the mail, and 

Plaintiff filed the motions prior to receiving that order. 

Since Plaintiff has already been granted a partial extension of time to comply with the 

Court’s August 5, 2015 screening order, his motion for another extension of time is premature. 

Case 1:14-cv-00479-BAM Document 28 Filed 09/03/15 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

Also, for the reasons explained in the August 28, 2015 order, which are incorporated herein by 

reference, the Court will not provide Plaintiff a free copy of a court document. 

For these reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s August 5, 

2015 screening order is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a free copy of a court document is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00479-BAM Document 28 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2