Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05903/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05903-3/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

GUSTAVO McKENZIE,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5903 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER 

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On December 9, 2005, findings and

recommendations were entered, recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a

claim. The court recommended dismissal based upon an earlier order dismissing the original

complaint with leave to amend. The court specifically noted that plaintiff had failed to allege

facts sufficient to state a claim for denial of access in violation of the First Amendment. 

Plaintiff’s vague allegations failed to articulate actual injury. Plaintiff failed to amend the

complaint, and the court recommended dismissal. 

On January 5, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff argues that the original complaint does state a claim for relief, and

refers to more specific injury. Plaintiff refers to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff is

advised that the court can not consider facts not alleged in the complaint. The August 24, 2005,

Case 1:04-cv-05903-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/06 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

order advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in the original complaint, and granted plaintiff leave to

file an amended complaint. Should plaintiff desire to assert additional factual allegations, he

must do so by way of an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff a further

extension of time to file an amended complaint. Should plaintiff fail to do so, the December 9,

2005, recommendation of dismissal will be submitted to the District Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted an extension of

time of thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05903-AWI-WMW Document 18 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2