Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00035/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00035-2/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

1

 In his request for clarification, plaintiff incorrectly claims that the court failed to make

any findings regarding plaintiff’s claims against any defendant except defendant Zhu. The court

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD GILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0035 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEDIA,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension

of time to file an opposition to defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted and his October 7, 2005 opposition will be deemed

timely.

Also, on October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a “request for clarification” of this

court’s May 20, 2005 screening order. The court deems this a request for reconsideration of the

May 20, 2005 order. So construed, “the request for clarification” will be denied as untimely. 

See Local Rule 72-303(b).1 

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 10/20/05 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

specifically found that plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claim against any

defendant except for plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Zhu. See May 20,

2005 Order at 1:20-2:2:1 & n.1. As with plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff failed to allege

in his amended complaint that any other defendant committed any overt act that led to plaintiff

suffering any medical problems. See November 1, 2004 Order at 3:3-10. Plaintiff was informed

of this deficiency in his original complaint, and given leave to correct the problem in an amended

complaint, but did not do so.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 9, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 opposition to defendant’s August 26, 2005 motion

to dismiss is deemed timely; and

3. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 “request f or clarification” is denied.

DATED: October 19, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

gilm0035.31

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2