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

January 19, 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.

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

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 3
2

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.) We have

yet to receive Gonzalez’s amended complaint.

In an abundance of caution, as plaintiff is proceeding pro se, we will grant a

further extension of time to Gonzalez. Plaintiff will be directed to amend his

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 3
3

complaint on or before January 31, 2006. We wish to make clear that should

Gonzalez fail to amend his complaint by this deadline, his complaint will be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with

a court order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff is directed to file his amended complaint on or before January

31, 2006, in accordance with this Court’s order dated October 26,

2005.

2. Should plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint by the close of

business on January 31, 2006, his complaint will be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with a

court order.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01392-JFM Document 18 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 3