Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01802/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01802-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL T. SCHAEFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. ROWLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1802 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge. ECF No. 5. 

On October 15, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd screened plaintiff’s complaint 

and dismissed it with leave to amend for failure to state a claim; plaintiff was granted thirty days 

to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 9. Over 45 days later, on December 3, 2015, plaintiff filed 

a motion for a 90-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 12. He sought 

this continuance because of two recent hospitalizations that prevented him from timely 

responding to the court’s order. On December 15, 2015, plaintiff’s motion was granted, and he 

was directed to file an amended complaint within 90 days from the date of the order. ECF No. 15. 

In light of this 90-day extension of time, plaintiff was informed that no further extensions of time 

would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Case 2:15-cv-01802-DB Document 27 Filed 11/10/16 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

2

On May 19, 2016, well beyond the 90-day deadline, plaintiff filed a second motion for 

extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 17. The court granted a 30-day 

extension on May 27, 2016, but advised plaintiff that no further extensions of time would be 

granted. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff was also informed that failure to file an amended complaint may 

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order and failure to 

prosecute. 

Plaintiff has now filed two more motions for extension of time to file an amended 

complaint, as well as a motion to stay this action. ECF Nos. 19, 23, 24. Plaintiff’s recent filings

reveal that he was placed in a crisis bed on June 6, 2016, for threatening a staff member, and that, 

upon his release five days later, he received some but not all of his legal documents. Plaintiff, 

however, does not explain how these legal documents are relevant to the retaliation and excessive 

force claims asserted in this action. It has now been one year since plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed, and he has yet to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff is unable to prosecute this 

action at this time, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time (ECF Nos. 19, 24) are granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 23) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of this order in which to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint will result in a 

dismissal of this action. No further extensions of time will be granted.

Dated: November 9, 2016

/DLB7;scha1802.eot+stay

Case 2:15-cv-01802-DB Document 27 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2