Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05125-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. SHAW, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5125 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO

COMPEL (Doc. 44.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

(Doc. 45.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF 

John R. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel

On August 4, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a Motion to Compel.

Plaintiff states that requests for interrogatories served on Defendant Shaw had not been

responded to and that Counsel for Defendant indicated that the responses were forthcoming at

Plaintiff’s deposition. 

On August 11, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion to Compel. However,

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 48 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 3
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

no Motion to Compel has been filed by Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Opposition indicates that the

responses by Defendant Shaw sought by Plaintiff had been served, however, they were served on

the wrong inmate. Upon discovery of this error, Defendants reserved the responses on Plaintiff

on the same date as the Opposition was filed. 

To date, as the record stands, there appears to be no issue necessitating the filing of a

Motion to Compel. Further, Plaintiff has not indicated to the Court that he did not receive the

responses he initially sought. Accordingly, the Motion for an Extension of Time to file a Motion

to Compel is DENIED. 

B. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Also on August 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint and appropriately served the Motion on Defendants. Plaintiff also lodged a proposed

Second Amended Complaint with the Court. However, it appears that the proposed Second

Amended Complaint was not served on Defendants. A close review of the proof of service

attached to the Motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint reveals that Plaintiff

only served Defendants with the Motion and not the proposed lodged Second Amended

Complaint. To date, Defendants have not filed an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to

the Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

Pursuant to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all pleadings filed

with the Court must be served on the opposing party. Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. 

Although the proposed Second Amended Complaint is only lodged with the Court at this time,

Plaintiff’s intention is that it be filed, however, there is no proof of service indicating that the

proposed Second Amended Complaint has been served on Defendants. Thus, Defendants are

unaware of any changes, additions or deletions intended by Plaintiff and cannot file either an

Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition without such information. Accordingly, in light of

Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants with the proposed lodged Second Amended Complaint, the

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. 

C. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 48 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. The Motion for an Extension of Time to file a Motion to Compel is DENIED:

2. The Motion for Leave to File A Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without

prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff the lodged Second

Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05125-OWW -SMS Document 48 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 3