Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05451/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05451-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEO KRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM ALLMON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05451-HSG 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR STAY; 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dkt. No. 30 

Plaintiff filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was housed at Mendocino County 

Jail. On August 22, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend

and ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by September 21, 2016. Docket No. 28. 

As of this date, Plaintiff has not yet filed a second amended complaint. 

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court,1requesting that the Court stay 

this action until he has the tools necessary to properly prosecute this case. Docket No. 30. 

Specifically, in a separate letter filed on October 11, 2016,2Plaintiff states that he is “out to court 

from San Quentin State Prison” and currently housed at Napa State Hospital; that all his legal 

paperwork is in his property at San Quentin State Prison; and that he has been unable to access the 

law library. Docket No. 31. Plaintiff does not specify how long he would like the instant action 

stayed; whether he would be able to prosecute his case while at Napa State Hospital if granted 

access to the law library; or when he is likely to return to San Quentin State Prison.

The Court is reluctant to stay this action indefinitely. Instead, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 

 

1

This letter is dated October 3, 2016. Docket No. 30.

2

This letter is dated September 29, 2016. Docket No. 31.

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 32 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

an extension of time to January 31, 2017 to file his second amended complaint. The second 

amended complaint must be simple and concise and should address the deficiencies identified in 

the amended complaint, as set forth in the Court’s August 22, 2016 Order of Dismissal with Leave 

to Amend. The second amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used 

in this order (15-5451 HSG (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Failure to file a proper second amended complaint within the designated time will 

result in the dismissal of this action. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a blank civil 

rights form along with his copy of this order.

Because Plaintiff has been granted the above extension of time, the Court therefore 

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a stay without prejudice to re-filing a renewed motion for a limited 

stay if Plaintiff finds that a stay is still necessary. If Plaintiff files a renewed motion for a stay, 

Plaintiff should specify why the Court should stay this case rather than grant an extension of time

to meet the pending deadlines, and should specify how long the stay should last.

With respect to Plaintiff’s allegation that he has been denied access to the law library, the 

Court certifies that Plaintiff is proceeding pro per in federal civil rights proceedings,3and requests 

that officials at the Napa County Jail provide Plaintiff with reasonable access to the tools needed 

to challenge the conditions of his confinement.

This order terminates Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

3 According to documents filed with Plaintiff’s October 11, 2016 letter, on September 7, 2016, 

Napa County Department of Corrections denied Plaintiff access to the law library on the grounds 

that Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Docket No. 30 at 5. However, Plaintiff is not 

represented by counsel in the instant action.

10/24/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 32 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 2