The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER RE: INFORMAL REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE
On January 1, 2011, Plaintiff Stephen Jerome Williams, a state inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, located in Calipatria, California, proceeding pro se, submitted a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). See Doc. No. 41. Plaintiff requested the Court reconsider its November 3, 2010 order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and allow leave to amend those claims for relief previously dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. For the reasons stated in the Court's February 14, 2011 Order, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 42. Because the Court granted Plaintiff further leave to amend, the Court declined to accept his proposed third amended complaint for filing and instead allowed Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) daysin which to file a third amended complaint that complied with the terms and conditions stated in the Court's February 14, 2011 Order.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint. On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an informal request for a status update on his motion for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 43. According to Plaintiff, he "is unaware of the status of the pending Application and Motion, and as a California State Prisoner proceeding pro se, I am unable to call the Court, or log on to the Court's website to check on the status of the Application and Motion." Plaintiff goes on to state that he is "concerned whether the Court has in fact received the aforementioned Application and Motion" because "there have been instances in the past where prison staff have either lost of failed to process an inmate's legal mail . . ."
Based on Plaintiff's submission, and because his current mailing address is slightly different from the address on record in February, the Court concludes that it is indeed likely that Plaintiff did not receive his courtesy copy via U.S. mail of the Court's February 14, 2011 Order. The Court therefore instructs the Clerk of Court to attach a copy of the Order [Doc. No. 42] hereto, and mail both documents to Plaintiff at his corrected address, which has been updated on the docket of the case.
Furthermore, the Court grants Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed in which to submit a third amended complaint that complies with the terms and conditions stated in the Court's February 14, 2011 Order.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...