Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02611/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02611-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY COLEMAN GRAY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2611 DFL DAD P

vs.

JERRY CARDOZA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action which was

removed to this court from the Sacramento County Superior Court. On June 27, 2006, the court

dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The court also

advised plaintiff that should he name additional defendants other than defendant Woodford in an

amended complaint, plaintiff would be responsible for service of those defendants because he is

not allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff

has been granted two extensions of time to file his amended complaint and has now requested yet

another extension for an unspecified period of time in which to file his amended complaint. 

Plaintiff contends that the court has not ruled on his prior requests for an order directing the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to serve his three complaints and nineteen summons. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court will not issue any order directed at the Sacramento County

Case 2:05-cv-02611-RRB-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/16/06 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

2

Sheriff’s Department concerning this matter while it was pending in state court. This action has

been removed by defendants to this federal court. The court will grant plaintiff a final extension

of time to file and serve his amended complaint.

Plaintiff has also filed a document styled, “Request For Affirmative

Orders/Motion to Compell [sic]/ Mandamus or Habeas Corpus.” Plaintiff indicates that the

sheriff will not serve the summons with respect to his state action unless plaintiff provides copies

of his complaint. Plaintiff claims he is unable to do because he lacks funds to make photocopies. 

Once again, this request by plaintiff relates solely to his efforts to serve his state court

complaints and summons and is not properly brought before this court. For the reasons set forth

above, plaintiff’s request will be denied. The court will not issue an order concerning plaintiff’s

state court action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 8, 2006 request for an extension of time to file his

amended complaint is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within thirty days from the date of

this order; the amended complaint must comply with the court’s June 27, 2006 order; plaintiff’s

failure to file a timely amended complaint and comply with the court’s June 27, 2006 order will

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s

orders; and

3. Plaintiff’s November 8, 2006 request styled, “Request For Affirmative

Orders/Motion to Compell [sic]/ Mandamus or Habeas Corpus,” is denied.

DATED: November 16, 2006.

DAD:4

gray2611.eot3

Case 2:05-cv-02611-RRB-DAD Document 49 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2