Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935-4/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

Plaintiff Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 30, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint

within thirty days from the date of service of that order. 

On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion for Leave to file Amended 

Complaint.” Within the motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint 

and requests clarification in “layman” terms the reasoning of the Court’s April 30, 2014, order. The 

Court shall grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and deny his 

request for clarification.

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, Sr.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01935-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION

[ECF No. 18]

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 19 Filed 06/10/14 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

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Extension of Time

Good cause having been presented to the Court Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time shall 

be granted. 

II. Motion for Clarification

Plaintiff’s motion for clarification seeks an advisory opinion which this Court may not issue. 

See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968). Plaintiff is directly to closely review the Court’s April 30, 

2014, order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, which sets forth in detail the applicable 

legal standards necessary to state a claim for relief under section 1983. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file 

an amended complaint; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 19 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 2