Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650-8/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

MAURICE GODOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG 

ORDER SUA SPONTE GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, an inmate at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will sua sponte grant

plaintiff an extension of time to February 14, 2020 to file a second amended complaint. 

DISCUSSION

On November 26, 2019, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to 

amend, noting that the amended complaint suffered from the same deficiencies as the initial 

complaint. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended complaint by December 

24, 2019, that addressed the identified deficiencies, or this action would be dismissed. Dkt. No. 

28 at 6. The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. Plaintiff 

did, however, file a notice of appeal (“NOA”) with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing 

the Court’s November 26, 2019 Order.1 Dkt. No. 30. The NOA does not stay the Court’s 

deadlines. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file a complaint that states 

cognizable claims. The Court will sua sponte grant plaintiff an extension of time to February 14, 

2020 to file a second amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s 

 

1 An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not an appealable decision. WMX Technologies, 

Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997).

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 34 Filed 01/13/20 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

November 26, 2019 Order. Failure to file a proper second amended complaint in the time 

provided will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. If using 

the court form complaint, plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the 

action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint completely replaces the 

previous complaints, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), and that he may 

not incorporate material from the prior complaints by reference. Plaintiff also may not change the 

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the second amended complaint. The Clerk 

shall include two copies of a blank complaint form with a copy of this order to plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte grants plaintiff an extension of time 

to February 14, 2020 to file a second amended complaint. Failure to file a proper second 

amended complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without 

further notice to plaintiff. The Clerk shall include two copies of a blank complaint form with a 

copy of this order to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/13/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 34 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2