Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07369/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07369-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. MCCOLM,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-7369 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL

ONE-WEEK EXTENSION FOR 

A. KHALID ANBER, et al., FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff filed this action on November 30, 2006. She also requested leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. On December 12, 2006, the court issued an order dismissing

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, with leave to amend. 

On January 22, 2007, the day the amended complaint was due, plaintiff filed a

statement indicating that she intended to withdraw her IFP request and pay the filing fee,

and also indicating that she required additional time to amend the complaint. On January

23, 2007, the court issued an order advising plaintiff that while she was free to withdraw her

IFP request, the complaint nonetheless remained dismissed. The court granted plaintiff a

one-week extension on the due-date, and advised her that the case would be dismissed if

the amended complaint was not filed on January 29, 2007.

On January 29, 2007, plaintiff filed notice of withdrawal of payment of filing fee. She

also asserted that she had not received the January 23, 2007, order until January 25, 2007,

and objected to what she termed the “one court day” notice of the new due date for the

amended complaint. She requested that she be permitted until at least February 14, 2007,

to file the amended complaint. The main reason for her request appears to be her

assertion that she is busy with discovery obligations in another lawsuit that she previously

filed in this court.

Case 4:06-cv-07369-PJH Document 10 Filed 01/30/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The request for an extension to February 14, 2007, is DENIED. The court will grant

plaintiff one additional week to file the amended complaint. In the December 12, 2006,

order, the court provided a detailed analysis of the deficiencies of the original complaint,

and gave specific instructions with regard to the requirements for stating a claim under

each cause of action alleged in the complaint. Moreover, the facts underlying the complaint

should all have been within plaintiff’s personal knowledge before she filed the lawsuit. 

Thus, plaintiff’s assertion that she needs to do extensive “research” in order to prepare an

amended complaint is not persuasive. 

The amended complaint shall be filed no later than Tuesday, February 6, 2007. If

the amended complaint is not filed by that date, the case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07369-PJH Document 10 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2