IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 20, 2009
THOMAS CLINTON, PLAINTIFF,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis, is suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 4, 2009, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. The court cautioned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise corrected the deficiencies identified in the September 4, 2009 order.
However, on September 30, 2009, plaintiff filed a document styled "objections," in which he references the September 4, 2009 order, but states his belief that the September 4, 2009 order was vacated as a result of findings and recommendations issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows on September 21, 2009 in a separate action designated as case number CIV S-09-1093. The findings and recommendations referred to by plaintiff have no bearing on this court's September 4, 2009 order. Given plaintiff's confusion, the court will construe plaintiff's objections as a request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint in accordance with this court's September 4, 2009 order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's objections, construed as a request for an extension of time, is granted, and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with this court's September 4, 2009 order, within 30 days of the date this order is filed. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this court's orders may result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.