Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05909/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05909-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

IBERRA,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03-5909 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CASE TO

BE HEARD AS AN ADA CASE (Doc. 16.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TIME TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

ISSUED OCTOBER 4, 2006.

 Louis Richard Fresquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans With

Disabilities Act. 

On October 4, 2006, this Court issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to

amend as Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983 or the

American’s with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to submit an Amended

Complaint and moved for an extension of time to do so. The request was granted but rather than

an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for the case to be heard as an Americans with

Disabilities Act case on December 21, 2006. 

As noted in the Court’s previous Order dismissing the Complaint, Plaintiff’s Complaint

alleged no facts giving rise to a cognizable claim for relief under the ADA. Plaintiff may not

simply submit a Motion that the case be heard as an ADA case, he must allege facts giving rise to

an ADA claim for it to be heard under the ADA. Plaintiff’s Motion simply “demands” that his

case be characterized as an ADA case. However, even if the Court characterized this as an

“ADA case” as Plaintiff requests, he must still allege facts giving rise to an ADA claim. Thus,

Case 1:03-cv-05909-OWW -SMS Document 17 Filed 01/08/07 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

Plaintiff’s Motion will be DENIED and Plaintiff will be allotted more time to file an Amended

Complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined in the Court’s Order dismissing the Complaint with

leave to amend. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. “The Motion For Case To Be Heard as an Americans With Disabilities Act.” is

DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days to file an Amended Complaint as contemplated by

the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

Recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a

Court Order and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05909-OWW -SMS Document 17 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2