Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01530-12/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

27

28

 Although his address has been updated in this action, it was not a result of a notice of change of address. 1

Plaintiff is reminded of Local Rule 83-183(b), which requires a party appearing pro se to keep the Court and

opposing parties advised as to his current address. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR LITTLEFIELD, JR., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT )

CLERK’S OFFICE, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1530 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND

(Document 32)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff Arthur Littlefield, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 27, 2006. 

On December 5, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation that Defendants’

motion to dismiss be granted. On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file

his objections. His motion is more akin to a motion to amend, however, as he explains that in

July 2007, he attempted to file a second amended complaint based on discovery he received in

June. According to Plaintiff, he gave the second amended complaint to Correctional Officer

Huerta for mailing on July 6, 2007. He was transferred on July 31, 2007, to Solano State Prison

and had been under the impression that his complaint was filed.1

Case 1:06-cv-01530-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 01/23/08 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff alleges that the first time he discovered that the second amended complaint had

not been filed was on December 10, 2007, when he received this Court’s December 5, 2007,

Findings and Recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. Because Plaintiff

did not notify Defendants’ counsel of his transfer, he was not served with their motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff now asks this Court to allow him to file his second amended complaint. He

attaches a July 6, 2007, motion to amend that he purports to have sent to the Court along with his

second amended complaint. In his motion, he explains that due to discovery he received on June

22, 2007, he requests that all allegations against Defendant Officer Miramontes and the Fresno

Probation Department be dismissed. He further alleges that the second amended complaint states

“a more definite and accurate claim as to the defendants in this matter” and the violations of his

civil rights. The second amended complaint also adds Officer T. Miller and the Fresno County

Superior Clerks Office as Defendants and attempts to keep the claims against the individual

clerk, identified as Jane Doe # 1.

It is apparent from Plaintiff’s pleading that his second amended complaint is an attempt to

conform his complaint to both the June 12, 2007, Findings and Recommendation and the recent

December 5, 2007, Findings and Recommendation. This of course, calls into question Plaintiff’s

claim that he attempted to mail the second amended complaint back in July. For example, the

December 5, 2007, Findings and Recommendation explained that the Defendants were entitled to

qualified immunity because there was no indication that they were not reasonable in relying on

the information received from the dispatch report. Miraculously, Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, which was allegedly completed in July, now includes allegations that the officers

were not reasonable in their reliance on the dispatch report. It is obvious that Plaintiff is willing

forgo honesty and allege anything necessary to keep his action alive. Plaintiff’s motion to amend

is therefore DENIED. 

Case 1:06-cv-01530-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 01/23/08 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

27

28

3

To ensure that Plaintiff has had an adequate opportunity to object to the December 5,

2007, Findings and Recommendation, and because it appears that Plaintiff was not served with

the motion to dismiss because he failed to update his address, the Court will allow Plaintiff an

ADDITIONAL THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of service of this order to so do. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01530-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3