Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00239-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Chavez
Defendant
Hassaun Haygood
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HASSAUN HAYGOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY CHAVEZ,

Defendant.

1:24-cv-000239-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ONE 

FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO FILE EITHER 

AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR A MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

21-DAY DEADLINE

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

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment 

free exercise of religion claim against Defendant Chavez. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 16, 2024, Defendant Chavez filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 

14.) On August 14, 2024, when more than 21 days passed without Plaintiff filing an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion,1the Court issued its “Order to Show 

Cause in Writing Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with 

the Local Rules.” (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff was directed to file a written response within 14 days, or, 

alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. (Id. at 2.) 

1 See Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:24-cv-00239-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/11/24 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

On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Request, and Request 

for a Sixty (60) Day Extension of Time” (Doc. 17) and an “Affidavit” (Doc. 18).

On September 4, 2024, this Court issued its “Order Discharging Order to Show Cause; 

Order Granting Request for Extension of Time.” (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff was directed to “file any 

opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss within 60 days from the date of service” of the 

order. (Id. at 3, emphasis in original.) 

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Request, and Request for a Fourteen (14) 

Day Extension of Time.” (Doc. 20.) The Court issued its “Order Granting Request for Extension 

of Time to File Either an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Leave to 

File an Amended Complaint” on October 24, 2024. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff was directed to file either 

an opposition or a motion for leave to amend no later than December 4, 2024. (Id. at 3.)

On November 25, 2024, the Clerk of the Court lodged Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

(Doc. 25.) 

II. DISCUSSION

After an OSC issued for Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 16), Plaintiff was granted a 60-day extension 

of time within which to file an opposition to the dismiss (Doc. 19). In that September 4, 2024, 

Order, Plaintiff was directed as follows: “Plaintiff SHALL file any opposition to Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss within 60 days from the date of service of this order.” (Id. at 3, emphasis in 

original; italics added.) Instead of filing an opposition as directed, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

extension of time (Doc. 21) and the Clerk of the Court lodged a first amended complaint (Doc. 

21) on October 23, 2024. 

The Court issued its October 24, 2024, order, granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 

December 4, 2024, within which to “file either (1) an opposition to Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss, or (2) a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.” (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff submitted 

another first amended complaint. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. He has neither filed an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss nor a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and the time 

Case 1:24-cv-00239-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/11/24 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 do so has passed. Instead, Plaintiff elected to ignore the Court’s directive to file either an 

opposition to the motion to dismiss or a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and 

submitted another amended complaint. 

An amended complaint is not a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. As 

previously explained, a motion for leave to file an amended complaint is required in this case 

because Defendant has appeared in the action and Plaintiff did not obtain Defendant’s consent to 

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was previously advised that he had not been granted leave to 

file an amended complaint. (Doc. 22 at 2:15-16.) The Court explained that a motion seeking leave 

to file an amended complaint “should include the reasons for the proposed amendment” and 

“explain why [Plaintiff] believes an amended complaint is necessary ....” (Id. at 3.) 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to 

comply with that order by filing either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a motion to leave 

to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will recommend dismissal of 

this action, without prejudice, for a failure to obey court orders. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff SHALL file either (1) an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or (2) 

a motion for leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this 

order; and

2. Plaintiff is ADVISED that failure to file either an opposition or a motion for leave to 

file an amended complaint as directed herein will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00239-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 3