The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN PART (DOCS. 45, 46, 47) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS
Plaintiff Rayson Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for a ninety-day extension of time to file a third amended complaint, and for filing of objections and other issues. Plaintiff filed these motions on February 24, 2010, March 1, 2010, and March 29, 2010.
Plaintiff complains of several issues, including lack of access to a laptop computer or a copier, forcing Plaintiff to hand-write his complaints, and disagreements with the undersigned's screening of Plaintiff's previous complaints. In its August 19, 2009 Order, the Court previously found that Plaintiff's second amended complaint contained several unrelated claims and struck Plaintiff's second amended complaint for non-compliance with the Federal Rules and the Court's orders. Plaintiff alleges that the Court never issued an August 19, 2009 Order. A review of the docket indicates that the Court attempted to mail its Order to Plaintiff on several occasions, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. The Court will send Plaintiff a copy of its August 19, 2009 Order. Plaintiff will be granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file his third amended complaint, in full compliance with the Court's August 19, 2009 Order. No extensions of time will be granted. Failure to comply will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.
Accordingly the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:
1) Plaintiff's motions for extension of time are GRANTED in part;
2) The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of its August 19, 2009 Order, filed at Docket No. 35;
3) Plaintiff will file a third amended complaint in full compliance with the Court's August 19, 2009 Order within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and
4) Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...