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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHIM RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1949 LKK DAD P

vs.

CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of sixty days “to research law and file

pleadings to case.” Plaintiff’s request is untimely and unreasonable.

On October 27, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and granted him

thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or seek an

extension of time within thirty days after October 27, 2005. On December 6, 2005, the

undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended

complaint or otherwise respond to the October 27, 2005 order.

Citing lack of law library access and prison lock downs, plaintiff states that he has

been prevented from doing legal research and obtaining copies for service on defendants’

attorneys. Plaintiff asserts that he needs sixty days to do legal research and prepare pleadings and

make copies. The court notes that there are no defendants in this case. Plaintiff’s complaint was

Case 2:04-cv-01949-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 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

2

dismissed prior to service of the pleading on any defendant, and there is no new pleading on file. 

Plaintiff is not required to obtain any copies, as the original document maybe mailed to the court

after plaintiff makes a copy by hand for his own records. Plaintiff has been directed to omit all

claims barred by the statute of limitations (specifically claims that arose in 1992), all claims for

which plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies before he filed this action, and all claims

against supervisory personnel who have been sued under the impermissible theory that

supervisors are responsible for the actions of all their employees. Plaintiff has been instructed to

provide more specific allegations about any claims that remain. Plaintiff has not demonstrated

that legal research will assist him in amending his complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for

sixty days will be denied. Plaintiff will be granted a final extension of thirty days to file an

amended complaint. 

Plaintiff’s request for extension of time was placed in the mail twelve days after

the deadline for filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff offers no explanation for his tardiness. 

Plaintiff was cautioned more than a year ago that a plaintiff who does not prosecute his case

diligently may suffer dismissal of his action. (Order filed Nov. 19, 2004, at 2.) The undersigned

previously recommended that this action be dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to pay the

filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, despite several

court orders and a lengthy extension of time. (Findings and Recommendations filed February 2,

2005.) The previous findings and recommendations were vacated after plaintiff filed an untimely

in forma pauperis application.

The findings and recommendations issued on December 6, 2005, will remain

pending. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days after the date of this

order, the pending findings and recommendations will be forwarded to the district judge for

consideration.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01949-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 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

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 15, 2005 untimely request for an extension of sixty days

is denied; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

complaint. No further extension of time will be granted for this purpose. If plaintiff fails to file

an amended complaint within thirty days, the findings and recommendations signed December 6,

2005, will be forwarded to the district judge.

DATED: December 21, 2005.

DAD:13:mp

mend1949.36final

Case 2:04-cv-01949-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3