Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00131/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00131-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

TYRONE M. ALLEN, SR., ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

SHIRLEY ANN CARTHLEDGE, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-00131-LJO-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN

EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL FORTYFIVE DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER WITHIN

WHICH TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Doc. 7)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a

civil action in this Court. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302 and 72-304.

I. Request for an Extension of Time

 Plaintiff was given leave to file a first amended complaint

within thirty days by the Court’s screening order filed on

January 30, 2008. The order was re-served on February 8, 2008;

thus, the first amended complaint is presently due to be filed no

later than March 13, 2008. 

On February 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for an

extension of time within which to file the first amended

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint. Plaintiff states that as an inmate of the Fresno

County Jail, he does not have access to a law library containing

federal law materials.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint because

Plaintiff did not state facts showing jurisdiction in this Court.

In the order filed on January 30, 2008, the Court explained to

Plaintiff that it is his burden to allege a short and plain

statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction

depends unless the Court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it. (Order at p.

4.)

Plaintiff’s original complaint did not state grounds for

jurisdiction in this Court; Plaintiff had sought return of

personal property and damages caused by Defendant’s alleged

misappropriation of Plaintiff’s funds and identification and

credit documents. Plaintiff appears to be alleging state tort or

contract claims; Plaintiff does not appear to be asserting a

claim concerning violation of a right arising under federal

statute, treaty, or the Constitution that would confer

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, Plaintiff

does not allege that Defendant is domiciled outside of

California, or that over $75,000.00 is in controversy; thus, no

basis appears for jurisdiction premised on diversity of

citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Because Plaintiff’s only burden is to alleged a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s

jurisdiction depends, it is not clear that Plaintiff would need

access to a law library. The Court has already provided Plaintiff

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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

with the legal standards governing the perceived defects in the

first amended complaint. There does not appear to be any need for

time to discern or plead facts; it appears that Plaintiff should

be aware of the facts upon which his pleading rests. 

The Court cannot continue the period for filing a first

amended complaint indefinitely. The Court must consider the

rights of any potential defendants and the possibility of

prejudice that would inhere in further delays in screening and

quieting the pleadings in this action. 

The Court will grant an extension of time for forty-five

days. If, without cause and/or excuse, Plaintiff does not comply

with the Court’s order to file a timely first amended complaint,

the Court will consider Plaintiff’s failure to be a failure to

comply with an order of the Court, which could result in

dismissal of the action.

II. Plaintiff’s Letter to the Court

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time was set forth in

letter form and was appropriately docketed as a motion for an

extension of time.

However, in the letter, Plaintiff also asked if he wanted to

end the process (presumably the case), would he still be required

to pay the $350.00 fee. The Court notes that it has already

ordered that the fee be withdrawn periodically from Plaintiff’s

trust account. 

Plaintiff further states that he did not and does not know

if he was supposed to be filing for relief in federal court, and

he asks for help. 

A document requesting a Court order must be styled as a

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

motion. See F.R.Civ.P. 7. Due to the press of business, the Court

cannot respond to individual requests regarding the status of

cases; any such requests will be denied. Further, the Court does

not provide legal advice to the parties. However, so long as the

parties inform the Court of any address changes in compliance

with Local Rule 83-183(b), the Court will notify the parties of

any Court action taken in their case.

III. Disposition 

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time to file a first amended complaint IS GRANTED,

and Plaintiff has until no later than forty-five days after the

date of service of this order in which to file a second amended

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00131-LJO -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4