The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTIONS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS
Findings And Recommendation
Plaintiff Rayshon Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on August 13, 2007. On May 1, 2008, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for alleging multiple unrelated claims against multiple defendants, with leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. On February 4, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint for alleging multiple unrelated claims against multiple defendants. The Court also screened Plaintiff's second claim of relief, and found that it failed to state a claim. Plaintiff was provided with leave to file a second amended complaint. On June 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which included more unrelated claims. The Court had previously warned Plaintiff against such filings. Plaintiff also filed a motion to consolidate all his claims from the past 6 to 7 years while incarcerated. On August 19, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion. The Court also struck the second amended complaint. Plaintiff was provided one final opportunity to file a third amended complaint in compliance with the Court's orders.
Plaintiff subsequently filed numerous motions for extensions of time, and complained of the denial of "legal technology tools," including access to a laptop, copying services, and an adequate law library. The Court granted Plaintiff until September 27, 2010 in which to file his third amended complaint.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for extension of time, filed September 14, 2010 and September 27, 2010.
II. Motions For Extension Of Time
Plaintiff contends that the undersigned is denying him due process and access to the courts. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned refused to send Plaintiff a copy of his complaint. Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed to file as many as claims against as many defendants as he chooses, whether or not they are related claims.
Plaintiff is not allowed to plead unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. An examination of Plaintiff's dismissed second amended complaint indicates discrete events against unrelated defendants, involving different legal issues. Plaintiff is not allowed to make unrelated claims involving different defendants in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); see George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff moves for a ninety-day extension of time. However, Plaintiff has received numerous extensions of time previously to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court. Plaintiff repeats the same arguments he has raised previously, which were denied. Plaintiff simply refuses to comply with the Court's order regarding Plaintiff's pleadings, which is not good cause for any further extensions of time. The Court will recommend denial of any extension of time.
III. Access To Technology Tools
In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff also requests access to legal technology tools, including a laptop, copier, and adequate access to the law library at Calipatria State Prison. The Court ...