IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 15, 2008
LIONELL THOLMER, PLAINTIFF,
CHERYL K. PLILER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Doc. 89), filed on August 13, 2008.
On June 12, 2008, the court issued an order striking plaintiff's second amended complaint as exceeding the scope of amendment allowed. Plaintiff was allowed 30 days in which to file a third amended complaint that complies with this court's orders. Plaintiff was previously granted an additional 30 days to file his third amended complaint. Plaintiff is now requesting more time because he has been transferred and separated from most of his legal documents. Plaintiff was previously warned that no further extensions would be given. However, as plaintiff has no control over being transferred to a new facility, the court will provide plaintiff an opportunity to recover his property following his transfer. However, plaintiff is again informed that further extensions will not be granted absent a showing of good cause.
In addition, plaintiff is reminded again that his third amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a complaint to contain a "short and plain statement" of his claim. Plaintiff is also reminded that in his third amended complaint he is only allowed to restate his First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against defendants Walker, Mayfield, Menni, Rosario and Vance regarding his retention in administrative segregation, and attempt to link defendants Ventimiglia, Pliler, Stratton, Stiles, Wilson and Morrow to those claims. He is not allowed to add additional claims or new defendants, nor is he allowed to restate his claims regarding his placement in administrative segregation. Any attempt on plaintiff's part to exceed the scope of permissible amendment will result in an order striking his third amended complaint without leave to amend, and this case will proceed on the claims surviving in his first amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Doc. 89) is granted; and
2. Plaintiff may file his third amended complaint, in accordance with this court's previous orders, within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.