IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 15, 2010
MARC ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY, PLAINTIFF,
STEPHEN MAYBERG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, civilly committed to a state mental hospital, is proceeding in forma pauperis and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a "statement" asking the court if, in light of their pending motion to dismiss (Docket # 12), they should file an opposition to plaintiff's subsequent motion for leave to file an amended complaint. As plaintiff did not file his first amended complaint within 21 days after service of the Fed. R. 12(b)(6) motion, filed on March 11, 2010, plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint cannot be filed as of right, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants' current motion to dismiss implicates only the first claim for relief in the original complaint, which contains four claims for relief. According to plaintiff, the proposed first amended complaint amends the fourth claim and adds two more as well as more defendants. Therefore, since defendants intend to oppose the filing of the amended complaint, they should not wait until the adjudication of the pending motion to dismiss to do so. The court will grant defendants what amounts to a further extension of time to file their opposition to plaintiff's motion to amend.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants are granted twenty-one days from the filed date of this order to oppose plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, filed on April 28, 2010 (docket # 21), after which plaintiff will have fourteen days to file any reply.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.