Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510-6/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 

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 19, 2022, the undersigned issued an order screening the complaint and 

findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining 

order be denied. ECF No. 22. In screening the complaint, the undersigned found that plaintiff 

had failed to state any cognizable claims and provided plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended 

complaint. Id. Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of time to file objections to the 

findings and recommendations but did not request an extension of time to file objections to the 

screening order. ECF Nos. 25, 26. After plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, he was 

given another opportunity to do so and cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint would 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff has now filed a 

response stating that he does not understand what the order means and that he is still within the 

time to file objections. ECF No. 28. 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 29 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 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 

2 

It appears that, in requesting an extension of time to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations regarding the motions for a temporary restraining order, plaintiff intended to 

also seek an extension of time to object to (or seek reconsideration by the district judge of) the 

screening order. The current deadline for filing objections the findings and recommendations is 

November 4, 2022. In light of plaintiff’s clarification, he will be granted an extension of time to 

file objections to both the screening order and the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s 

response to the order directing him to file an amended complaint will also be construed as a 

motion to extend his deadline to file an amended complaint until after he files objections and 

those objections are ruled on by the assigned district judge. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff shall have an additional fourteen days, up to November 18, 2022, to file 

objections to the August 19, 2022 order and findings and recommendations. 

2. Plaintiff’s response to the order directing him to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 

28) is construed as a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and the Clerk 

of the Court is directed to update the docket accordingly. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 28) 

is GRANTED. The deadline for filing an amended complaint is VACATED and will be re-set 

accordingly upon the resolution of any objections plaintiff may file to the screening order or his 

failure to file any such objections within the time permitted. 

DATED: October 26, 2022 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 29 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 2