Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06542/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06542-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

BENNIE RAY BROWN, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

D.A. GARRETT HAMILTON, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-CV-6542-OWW-TAG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED 

ORDER DENYING THIRD REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 26)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE DOCUMENTS ON

PLAINTIFF (Docs. 1, 19)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On November

6, 2003, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On May

9, 2005, the Court ordered that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with

leave to amend. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint by June 13, 2005. 

(Id.). 

On May 20, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time within which to comply with

the Court’s order of May 9, 2005. (Doc. 20). On June 14, 2005, the Court granted plaintiff an 

Case 1:03-cv-06542-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 12/05/05 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

2

extension of time until July 18, 2005 within which to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 21). On

September 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day “continuance,” which the Court

construed as a second request for an extension of time to respond. (Doc. 23). On October 25,

2005, the Court granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 25). 

On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking a third extension of time in

which to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 26). As grounds therefore, plaintiff contends that

he has been unable to obtain documents from the public defender’s office and is unable to pay for

copying the public defender’s file. (Doc. 26, p. 1). 

The Court notes that although plaintiff has been granted extensions of time totaling more

than seven months, he has failed to file an amended complaint that rectifies the problems

identified in the Court’s May 8, 2005 order. Now plaintiff contends that he has been unable to

comply with the Court’s order due to his inability to obtain documents from the public defender. 

It is not apparent to this Court what documents plaintiff requires in order to comply with

the order to file an amended complaint. However, assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff presently

has no files in his possession related to this case, the only files plaintiff would need in order to

comply with the Court’s order are the original complaint, which the Court has identified as

deficient, and the Court’s May 8, 2005 Order explaining those deficiencies. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and will

require plaintiff to respond to this order to show cause either by filing an amended complaint

within thirty days or, in a written submission to this Court, showing good cause why the

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2005 order. In

order to ensure that plaintiff has all of the documents he requires to file his amended complaint,

the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to serve him with copies of the original complaint and

the Court’s May 8, 2005 order. (Docs. 1, 19). 

///

Case 1:03-cv-06542-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 12/05/05 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this Order, to

SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the

Court’s May 8, 2005 order. Plaintiff may satisfy the order to show cause by filing an

amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Court in its May 8,

2005 order or by filing a written submission with the Court explaining his good cause for

failure to comply with the Court’s order to amend; 

2. Plaintiff’s third request for an extension of time (Doc. 26) is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve on plaintiff the original complaint

(Doc. 1), and the Court’s May 8, 2005 order (Doc. 19). 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06542-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 12/05/05 Page 3 of 3