Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03026/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03026-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE FRANK OGLESBY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv3026 DMS (MDD)

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT, (3) DENYING

AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY 12,

2013 ORDER AND (4) DENYING AS

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

AN EXTENSION OF MOTION CUT-OFF

DATE

[Docket Nos. 51, 55, 56, 57]

vs.

LELAND MCEWEN, et al.,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on (1) the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the

Magistrate Judge to grant the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed by

Defendants Gray, Belavich, Crow, Banaga-Bugarin, Zamora and McEwen, (2) Plaintiff’s request for

an extension of time to file objections to the R&R, (3) Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

July 12, 2013 Order and (4) Defendants’ request for an extension of the motion cut-off date. 

Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of Time to File Objections to the R&R

The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until August 21, 2013, to file objections to the R&R. 

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file objections on the ground

- 1 - 11cv3026

Case 3:11-cv-03026-DMS-MDD Document 58 Filed 08/22/13 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

27

28

that he recently received over 2,000 pages of documents from Defendants, and he would not have time

to review those documents and formulate his objections by the August 21, 2013 deadline. However,

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is directed to the pleadings, and Plaintiff fails to explain how his

review of the documents would affect what is already alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file objections to the

R&R. R&R

Having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, this Court adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. 

In accordance with the R&R, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies set

out in the R&R. Plaintiff is cautioned that if his Third Amended Complaint does not cure the

deficiencies set out in the R&R, his case will be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. 

The Third Amended Complaint shall be filed on or before September 23, 2013. This deadline should

provide Plaintiff with sufficient time to review the records referenced above and incorporate any

additional facts contained therein into a Third Amended Complaint. 

In light of this ruling, the Court hereby vacates the February 11, 2013 scheduling order and

all amendments thereto.1

 The Magistrate Judge shall issue a new scheduling order after Plaintiff files

his Third Amended Complaint and Defendants file their Answers thereto. In setting new dates, the

Magistrate Judge should consider the time spent on the case thus far, and set dates accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2013

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

1

 In light of the scheduling order being vacated, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s Objection

to the Magistrate Judge’s July 12, 2013 Order and Defendants’ application for an extension of the

motion cut-off date.

- 2 - 11cv3026

Case 3:11-cv-03026-DMS-MDD Document 58 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2