UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 8, 2011
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE;
(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
(3) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES; AND
(4) DENYING MOTION FOR COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF Nos. 21-24]
On May 16, 2011, this Court granted Plaintiff's request for an
extension of time to file his Second Amended Complaint. See May 16,
2011 Order at 2. That Order was returned to the Court as
"undeliverable" with the notation that Plaintiff had been paroled [ECF
No. 18]. Plaintiff has now filed four additional motions including:
(1) Motion to Reopen Case Pursuant
to Rule 15(c)(2) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2)
Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Second Amended Complaint; (3)
Motion for Permission to Exceed Page Limitation; and (4) Motion for
Order Directing Clerk of Court to Send Plaintiff a Copy of his First
Amended Complaint. In these Motions Plaintiff indicates that his
parole has been revoked again and he is currently incarcerated at the
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
First, Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen the case is DENIED as moot. No judgment has been entered in this matter and the case will proceed once Plaintiff files his Second Amended Complaint. Second, because it appears that Plaintiff did not receive the Court's May 16, 2011 Order, Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File his Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court's May 16, 2011 Order. The Court will provide Plaintiff an additional sixty (60) days from the date this Order is "Filed" to submit his Second Amended Complaint. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Exceed Page Limitation is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is not to exceed fifty (50) pages. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for a Copy of his First Amended Complaint is DENIED. This request is denied as Plaintiff has no constitutional right to free photocopying services. See Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). As the Court stated in the May 16, 2011 Order, Plaintiff may contact the Clerk of Court to arrange for a copy at the standard rate of $0.50 per page.
The Court cautions that if Plaintiff continues to fail to apprise the Court of his current address, this action may be subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See SD CIVLR 83.11(b). Plaintiff is also reminded that he must correct all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court's March 9, 2011 Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.