Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00704/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00704-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fleaman
Defendant
Richard A. Holcomb
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. HOLCOMB, CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00704 AWI-DLB PC

Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

vs. EXTENSION OFTIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

10 DAYS

SGT. FLEAMAN, et al., [DOC #39 & 41]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Richard A. Holcomb (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s

motion to amend his complaint filed on May 15, 2007, and a motion to extend time to file objections

to this court’s findings and recommendations filed on May 18, 2007. 

In plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, he has not clearly indicated what the amendment

will be, nor has he submitted a lodged complaint. However, after reviewing the file in this matter,

plaintiff is granted ten days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff is advised that he has already been granted leave to amend his complaint once. Further,

defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2007, based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his

Case 1:06-cv-00704-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 05/23/07 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

administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not yet responded to defendant’s motion which may render

plaintiff’s amended complaint moot. Plaintiff is ordered to reply defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the

reply, it is incumbent on plaintiff to demonstrate that administrative remedies were exhausted. If no

opposition is filed, the court will deem the motion as unopposed and will grant defendant’s motion.

Further, on May 18, 2007, the District Court adopted this court’s findings and recommendations

regarding plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for extension

of time to file objections is denied since it is moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s is granted ten (10) days from the date of service of this order in which to file

a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss filed on April 3, 2007. If no opposition is

filed, the court will deem the motion unopposed;

2) If after reviewing defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff believes that the amended

complaint is not moot, he may file an amended complaint within ten (10) days from the

date of service of this order;

3) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to this court’s findings and

recommendations regarding plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00704-AWI-DLB Document 43 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2