Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Perez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 1, 2010

RAYSHON THOMAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 31)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 38)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFF / COMPLAINT FORM

ORDER

Plaintiff Rayshon Thomas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is a motion for extension of time and objections to the Court's September 29, 2009 Findings and Recommendations.

I. Motion for Extension of Time

On July 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for thirty to sixty days to respond to various court orders. Plaintiff contends that his legal mail is being returned and needs the extra time to respond. The Court does not find it necessary to grant a permanent extension of time to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion is DISREGARDED. If Plaintiff requires an extension of time to respond, Plaintiff may so request given good cause.

II. September 29, 2009 Findings and Recommendations and Objections

On September 29, 2009, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failing to update the Court as to his current address. On December 14, 2009 and December 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections with the Court.

Plaintiff contends that he has not received his legal mail regarding this case. The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file a third amended complaint, curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in its February 4, 2009 and August 19, 2009 orders. The Court reiterates that Plaintiff is not permitted to allege different claims against different defendants involving different legal issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).*fn1 Plaintiff is warned that failure to obey this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:

1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, filed July 2, 2009, is DISREGARDED as unnecessary;

2. The Court's Findings and Recommendations, filed September 29, 2009, is VACATED;

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his third amended complaint, curing the deficiencies previously identified by this Court in its February 4, 2009 and August 19, 2009 orders; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.