Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00082-11/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-RRB-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

oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 36), plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 34), and

defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 30). 

In plaintiff’s original complaint, he named six individuals as defendants. The

court found the complaint stated a claim against three of the defendants, but failed to do so

against the remaining three. Accordingly, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations

to dismiss the three supervisory defendants. In opposition to those findings and

recommendations, plaintiff stated that the three defendants the findings and recommendations

named were the incorrect defendants. On July 23, 2007, the undersigned issued an order

vacating the findings and recommendations (Doc. 26). Plaintiff had also filed a request for

additional time to file an amended complaint to address the defects in his complaint regarding the

supervisory defendants. The court construed this request as a motion for leave to amend, which

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 37 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The amended complaint was filed on November 1, 2007. The court notes that the 1

complaint was signed by plaintiff on October 27, 2007. However, even if the court assumes the

mail box rule applies, plaintiff still missed his 30 day window of opportunity to file his amended

complaint by 22 days.

If plaintiff requests and is granted leave to amend his complaint, the motion to 2

dismiss will be moot as addressing a pleading which will no longer be the operative pleading. 

Defendants will then be required to file a responsive pleading within the time allowed.

2

was denied as unnecessary because no defendant had yet appeared. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15, plaintiff was able to amend his complaint one time as a matter of right at any

time prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. Plaintiff was then allowed 30 days, or until

August 22, 2007, to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 26).

On August 31, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his

amended complaint. This request was granted by an order signed on September 6, 2007,

allowing plaintiff an additional 30 days. The 30 day deadline expired on October 5, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was not filed until November 1, 2007. In the meantime,

defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 13, 2007. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s time to file his once as of right amended complaint

expired prior to the filing of the amended complaint. Once his Rule 15 time to amend once as 1

of right expired, and defendants had appeared, plaintiff was required to obtain leave of court

prior to filing his amended complaint. He has not done so. The amended complaint (Doc. 34)

will therefore be stricken as filed without leave of court. 

If plaintiff desires to proceed on an amended complaint, he will be required to file

a motion for leave of court to do so. He will have 30 days from the date of this order in which to

file his request. Defendants will then have 30 days from the date plaintiff’s motion is filed to

respond, and plaintiff will have 15 days from the date of defendant’s response to file a reply. 

2

If, however, plaintiff does not wish to file a motion for leave of court to file an

amended complaint, and wants to proceed on his original complaint, he will have 30 days from

the date of this order to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants will then

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 37 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

have 15 days to file a reply. Thus, plaintiff’s current request for additional time to respond to

the motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.

 Accordingly, plaintiff has 30 day in which to decide how he wants to proceed in

this matter. Within that 30 day time period, plaintiff either needs to file a motion for leave of

court to file an amended complaint, or he needs to respond to defendants motion to dismiss his

original complaint. Defendants will then have time to respond as stated above.

Pursuant to the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 34) is stricken as filed without leave

of court;

2. Plaintiff’s request for additional time (Doc. 36) is denied as moot;

3. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file either a motion for

leave of court to file amended complaint or an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss;

4. If plaintiff files a motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint,

defendants will have 30 days from the date that motion is filed to file a response, and plaintiff

will have 15 days from the date of defendants’ response to file a reply;

5. If plaintiff files an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, defendants

will have 15 days from the date the opposition is filed to file a reply;

6. Until such time as plaintiff is granted leave of court to file an amended

complaint, if any, the operative pleading will be the original complaint (Doc. 1).

DATED: December 18, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00082-JAM-CMK Document 37 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3