Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01897/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01897-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hollie Jones
Plaintiff
Y. Magallon
Defendant

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

HOLLIE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

Y. MAGALLON,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 50

DAYS

(ECF No. 12)

FIFTY (50) DAY DEADLINE

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty (60) day 

extension of time to file a first amended complaint, filed on April 21, 2016. (ECF No. 12.) 

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s request will be DENIED: 

Plaintiff filed his first civil rights complaint on December 21, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint but 

granting him leave to amend within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the Court’s 

order. (ECF No. 8.) This order was served on Plaintiff on April 4, 2016, after the Clerk 

of Court received notice of Plaintiff’s change of address. (ECF No. 9.) On April 11, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a sixty (60) day extension of time to file an 

Case 1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS Document 13 Filed 04/25/16 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

amended complaint, citing difficulties accessing the law library. (ECF No. 10.) On April 

14, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, 

and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty (60) days of the date of 

service of the Court’s order. (ECF No. 11.) The Court’s order granting the extension of 

time was served on Plaintiff on April 14, 2016. On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion requesting a sixty (60) day extension of time to file an amended 

complaint, again on the grounds that he has had difficulty accessing the law library. 

(ECF No. 12.)

Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time comes before the Court a mere 

ten (10) days after his first motion. Plaintiff has not shown why the original sixty (60) day 

extension of time is insufficient. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff must file his first amended complaint within fifty (50) days of the date 

of this order or his case may be subject to dismissal, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a claim and failure to obey a court order, subject to the “three strikes” 

provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS Document 13 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 2