UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 28, 2010
GREGORY SYLVESTER RIDEAU, JR., CDCR #K-32522, PLAINTIFF,
L. MINNICK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE; AND
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
On October 26, 2009, this Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). Plaintiff was informed of all the deficiencies of pleading found in his Second Amended Complaint and given leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Instead of filing a Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff chose to file an Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which was ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Following the issue of the mandate, and due to the fact that the time previously granted to Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint had passed, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Now Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Complaint and Request for Change of Venue." [Doc. No. 20]. The Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to reopen the matter, direct the Clerk of Court to vacate the judgment entered on December 21, 2009 and DENY his Motion for change of venue.
Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed in which to file a Third Amended Complaint and he must comply with the Court's October 26, 2009 Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a Third Amended Complaint within this time frame, the Court will, once again, direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. No further motions to reopen the matter will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.