Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01446-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1446-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1), dismissed all but one claim 

as non-cognizable, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the court 

he was willing to proceed on his cognizable claim within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) 

Plaintiff failed to amend or notify before the thirty-day deadline elapsed. Accordingly, on 

April 1, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended pleading or show cause why 

the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 11.) On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff requested 

a sixty-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause (ECF No. 11), filed April 1, 2015, is discharged; 

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/27/15 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

2. Plaintiff shall file a signed, amended pleading within sixty (60) days of the 

date of service of this order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a signed amended pleading in compliance with this 

order, the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, subject to the 

“three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 

658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01446-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 2