Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06697/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06697-3/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

DAVID W. HOOKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE GALAZA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6697 OWW SMS P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 120.) 

 David W. Hooker (“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. 

On February 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to extend time to file a Third Amended

Complaint as ordered by the Court. Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the

Motion for an extension of time. Based on the above, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. 

However, the Court will not grant the request for a period of sixty days. Plaintiff’s law library

justification for the time is unconvincing. This Court has pending before it hundreds of similar

cases litigated by inmates with limited law library access. Moreover, this case has been pending

since October 10, 2000, and Defendants have been served and an Answer filed. Plaintiff’s first

Complaint was found to state cognizable claims, however, Plaintiff moved to amend the

Complaint and his request was granted. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint named thirty-nine

Case 1:00-cv-06697-OWW -SMS Document 123 Filed 03/02/06 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

Defendants and was so lengthy the Court found it violated Rule 8(a). Plaintiff was granted leave

to file a Second Amended Complaint which he did on July 2, 2004. However, this Complaint

was stricken from the record because it again failed to comply with Rule 8(a). Plaintiff was

afforded leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and has been granted at least one extension of

time since. Plaintiff now requests that the Court grant him a period of sixty days to file his Third

Amended Complaint because he has not had sufficient time in the law library. It is unclear why

Plaintiff needs access to the law library. The Court provided Plaintiff with the relevant law

needed to frame his allegations and also informed him of the deficiencies, namely, that the

Complaint was too long. Access to the law library will not remedy the deficiencies outlined by

the Court and in fact, may only serve to add to the length of any Amended Complaint filed by

Plaintiff which will only serve to again violate Rule 8(a). Plaintiff’s repeated and continued

delay of framing a complaint on which the Court can proceed borders on lack of prosecution of

the case. The Court will not afford Plaintiff an unending amount of time to formulate a

Complaint nor will it tolerate the repeated filing of Complaints that do not conform to the rules. 

As stated above, this case has been pending since the year 2000. Surely, five years is sufficient

time to formulate a Complaint of reasonable length on which the Court can proceed. 

The Request for an extension of time is GRANTED. The Third Amended Complaint is

due within forty-five (45) days of the date of service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06697-OWW -SMS Document 123 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2