Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01594-7/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

ANTHONY BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JACK ST. CLAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01594-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 

AND GRANTING THIRTY-DAY 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Anthony Bell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 1, 2013. On May 20, 2014, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. On July 3, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to stay this action until he is released from custody.1

Plaintiff did not state when he anticipates release from custody and his status as a prisoner 

proceeding pro se does not provide grounds to stay this action indefinitely. The Court will grant a 

thirty-day extension of time to amend. In the alternative, Plaintiff may elect to dismiss the action 

voluntarily and pursue it at a later date, as he previously attempted to do.2

 

1

Plaintiff previously filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and a motion for a stay, but neither filing was signed and 

they were stricken from the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 130. (Docs. 18-21.)

2

If Plaintiff files a notice of voluntary dismissal, the dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A), (B). 

However, the Court expresses no opinion regarding the effect of the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims, or on 

any other issue which may affect the viability of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 1:13-cv-01594-SKO Document 23 Filed 07/08/14 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is HEREBY DENIED, but Plaintiff is 

GRANTED a thirty-day extension of time to file an amended complaint in compliance with the 

screening order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01594-SKO Document 23 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 2