Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Sedillo v. Makela
March 5, 2009
ANDREW JOSEPH SEDILLO, PLAINTIFF,
LINDA MAKELA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On April 7, 2008, pro se prisoner Plaintiff Andrew Joseph Sedillo ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 7, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Plaintiff's Application"). On February 9, 2009, the court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend (the "February 9, 2009 Order"). The February 9, 2009 Order granted Plaintiff leave until March 9, 2009 to submit an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of the Complaint.
Currently before the court is Plaintiff's "Request for Extension of Time and Request for Clarification i.e., Instructions" ("Plaintiff's Request"), in which he raises two issues. First, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 days to file an amended complaint on the basis that his prison is on mandatory lock-down for at least 60 days, depriving Plaintiff "the necessary tools for submitting an amended complaint." Pl.'s Request 1. Plaintiff also asserts that he is not allowed access to the library because this action does not have "direct connection to the incarceration of inmate." Id. 2. Both of these assertions lack merit. Plaintiff does not identify what "tools" he needs to file an amended complaint, but even if the prison is in lock-down, a plaintiff should be able to call for books in the library. Further, this action is related to his incarceration such that Plaintiff should have access to the library. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff a 30-day extension to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in compliance with the February 9, 2009 Order by April 8, 2009. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with the February 9, 2009 Order by April 8, 2009, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice that states that the dismissal counts as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Second, Plaintiff seeks clarification regarding his in forma pauperis status. The court granted Plaintiff's Application and Plaintiff need not file another application. Plaintiff is notified, however, that regardless of whether Plaintiff can ultimately state a claim, Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action and this amount will be taken from his prison trust account.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For