1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID GONZALEZ, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Case No. 4: 05-CV-1392

:

v. :

:

BERKS COUNTY, PA, POLICE : (Judge McClure)

CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF :

READING, PA, :

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR :

BERKS COUNTY, AND :

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

February 3, 2006

Plaintiff David Gonzalez, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at SCIHuntingdon, is proceeding pro se in this section 1983 action. In his complaint,

Gonzalez alleges that the City of Reading Chief of Police, the Berks County District

Attorney, and unidentified John Doe detectives caused his arrest and prosecution

for murder by knowingly fabricating false evidence. Gonzalez was found not guilty

in 2003.

On September 16, 2005, defendant Charles R. Broad, Chief of Police for the

City of Reading, filed an answer asserting nineteen affirmative defenses. (Rec.

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Doc. No. 12.) On September 19, 2005, defendant Mark Baldwin, Esq., District

Attorney of Berks County, filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). (Rec. Doc. No. 13.) Gonzalez did not file a response. 

In an order dated October 26, 2005, this court denied the motion to dismiss

without prejudice and granted the defendant District Attorney’s motion for a more

definite statement under Rule 12(e). (Rec. Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff Gonzalez was

directed to amend his complaint within thirty days of the October 26 order to allege

with specificity the false evidence or statements allegedly known to be false by the

defendants and used against him at trial. Gonzalez was also directed to allege any

specific acts of evidence fabrication, and to further clarify his claims against the

John Doe detectives to aid in the identification of those defendants. Finally, this

court cautioned that if Gonzalez failed to amend within the thirty day window, his

complaint would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Gonzalez subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time to comply

with the October 26, 2005 order. We granted the motion, and directed Gonzalez to

amend his complaint on or before January 11, 2006. (Rec. Doc. No. 17.) On

January 19, 2006, in an abundance of caution we granted a further extension of time

to Gonzalez. (Rec. Doc. No. 18.) We directed plaintiff to file his amended

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 3
3

complaint on or before January 31, 2006, in accordance with the court’s October

26, 2005 order. We also explicitly stated in our January 19, 2006 order that should

plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint by the close of business on January 31,

2006, his complaint would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute

and for failure to comply with a court order. After several extensions of time we

have not received an amended complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and for failure to comply with this court’s January 19, 2006

order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

2. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 3