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.

Steven J. Wohl v. Gray Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 10, 2010

STEVEN J. WOHL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
GRAY DAVIS, ET AL., AND DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

(Doc. 32) ORDER DENYING MOTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Steven J. Wohl ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time to file his third amended complaint. (Doc. #32.)

Plaintiff's second amended complaint was screened and dismissed on June 29, 2010, for failing to state any claims. (Doc. #25.) Plaintiff was informed of the deficiencies in his claims and given thirty days leave to file a third amended complaint.

On August 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time. (Doc. #28.) The Court granted the extension on August 9, 2010. (Doc. #29.) On September 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a sixty-day extension of time. (Doc. #30.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion on September 27, 2010. (Doc. #31.) The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that "no further requests for an extension of time to file an amended complaint will be granted."

(Order Granting Pl.'s Second Mot. to Extend Time to File an Am. Compl. 1:19-20, ECF No. 31.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's December 3, 2010, motion requesting a third extension of time will be denied.

Pursuant to the September 27, 2010, court order giving Plaintiff sixty days to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's third amended complaint was due on November 30, 2010. Since Plaintiff has failed to file his third amended complaint on time, he has forfeited his opportunity to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice upheld where court had instructed plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's December 3, 2010, motion requesting an extension of time is DENIED.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief can be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj

20101210

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.