Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00082-10/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

CHARLES NEUMANN, No. CIV S-07-0082-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MARTIN VEAL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to

file an amended complaint and respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 32).

On June 11, 2007, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations to

dismiss three of the six defendants named in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff filed objections to

the findings and recommendations, and filed a request for additional time to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff’s objections pointed out an error in the findings and recommendations as to

the names of the defendants for which dismissal was recommended. Plaintiff did not specifically

object to the dismissal of the defendants, although it was clear which defendants the undersigned

was recommending be dismissed.

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/02/07 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

Plaintiff’s request for extension of time was filed on October 15, 2007, but it was 1

signed and presumably placed into the prison mail system on October 6, 2007. 

2

The court construed plaintiff’s request for additional time as a request for leave to

amend his complaint. The court found granting leave to amend unnecessary because plaintiff

had not filed an amended complaint and no responsive pleading had been filed. Therefore, the

court stated plaintiff could file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of that order. 

Plaintiff was warned that if no amended complaint was filed within the time allowed, the Court

would recommend dismissal of the three supervisory defendants and the case would proceed on

the original complaint. 

Plaintiff filed another request for additional time on August 31, 2007, which was

granted. Plaintiff therefore had until October 9, 2007, to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff

was again warned that if no amended complaint was filed, the action would proceed on the

original complaint and the Court would recommend dismissal of defendants Veal, Mendoza, and

Gyammi. No amended complaint has been filed.

In the meantime, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 13, 2007. No

opposition to the motion to dismiss has been received. However, on October 15, 2007, plaintiff

filed another request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint and to respond to the

motion to dismiss . Plaintiff is asking for an additional 45 days. 1

Plaintiff has been given sufficient time to file his amended complaint. His current

motion for extension of time does not provide any reason for why he is in need of an additional

45 days. Plaintiff’s motion simply states 

Plaintiff respectfully moves this honorable court for an order

granting a “45” day extension of time. Plaintiff is currently on

leave to amend his civil rights complaint, who needs more time to

amend that complaint. On or about September 20, 2007, plaintiff

received a motion to dismiss his complaint, plaintiff would also

use that extension of time to file his written opposition to that

motion. (Doc. 32)

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/02/07 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

3

Eastern District of California Local Rule 6-144(c) states that after the initial

extension of time, additional extensions of time will not ordinarily be granted. Plaintiff has

shown no cause for an extraordinary grant of additional time. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be

denied in regards to additional time for his filing an amended complaint. If plaintiff wishes to

amend his complaint at this stage of the case, plaintiff will have to submit a request for leave of

court to file his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a), Local Rule 5-137(c). By

separate order, the undersigned will recommend the dismissal of defendants Veal, Mendoza, and

Gyammi.

Plaintiff’s request for additional time also includes a request for additional time to

respond to the motion to dismiss filed September 13, 2007. Although plaintiff has made no

showing of good cause, the undersigned is aware that it is often difficult for prisoners to access

the law library within the time required for a response to such a motion. Therefore, the Court

will grant one extension of time to allow plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the motion to

dismiss. However, the extension of time is limited to 30 days, not the 45 days plaintiff has

requested. No additional extensions will be given. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 32) is granted in part and

denied in part; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file an amended complaint is

denied;

3. In order for plaintiff to file an amended complaint, he must submit a

request for leave of court to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) and Local Rule 5-137(c);

4. Plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to defendants’ motion to

dismiss is granted; and

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/02/07 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

4

5. Plaintiff may file his opposition to the motion to dismiss within 30 days of

the date of service of this order.

DATED: November 2, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 33 Filed 11/02/07 Page 4 of 4