Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 18, 2011, the court issued an order vacating findings and recommendations recommending dismissal and granting plaintiff additional time to submit the USM-285 forms, summons, and copies of his amended complaint to effect service on defendants. Plaintiff was warned that further delays in this action on his part were unacceptable and that plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Nonetheless, plaintiff has still not submitted the documents as ordered by the court in the July 18, 2011 order.
On August 1, 2011, petitioner instead filed a document styled, "Motion for Immediate Extension [sic] of time" in which he requests a "lengthy" extension of time in order to request leave to file a second amended complaint to include additional defendants. (Doc. No. 32 at 1.) Therein, plaintiff also requests a court order to compel the California Medical Facility "to release the names of there [sic] employees" who may be defendants for his Eighth Amendment claim. (Id.) Lastly, plaintiff contends that he is having difficulty obtaining "legal copys" [sic]. (Id.)
Before the court could respond to plaintiff's requests, plaintiff filed several more motions. On August 17, 2011, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his USM-285 forms. (Doc. No. 35.) On August 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings while he proceeds with an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 37.) Also on August 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 38.)
The court will grant plaintiff one final extension of time to file his USM-285 forms, the summons, and copies of his amended complaint. However, the court will not issue an order compelling the California Medical Facility to "release the names" of employees as requested by plaintiff. Plaintiff's discovery request in this regard is vague and unsupported. In addition, the California Medical Facility is not a party to this action.
As for plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, the motion is defective. Plaintiff is advised that if he
wishes to further amend his complaint, he must file a motion
explaining why he is now seeking further leave to amend when this
action was commenced two years ago. Plaintiff must also attach to his
motion a copy of any proposed second amended complaint.*fn1
See Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If
such a motion is filed, the court will consider whether justice
requires that further leave to amend be granted. Meanwhile, at this
time the action is still proceeding on plaintiff's amended
Moreover, plaintiff is again cautioned that he is required to comply with the court's orders and all applicable rules.
In moving for a stay, plaintiff explains that he has filed an appeal challenging this court's order denying his request for the appointment of counsel. An appeal from an interlocutory order does not, however "stay the proceedings, as it is firmly established that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case." Plotkin v. Pacific Tel. and Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir.1982). Therefore, plaintiff's motion for a stay will be denied.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2011 and August 17, 2011 motions for extensions of time (Docs. No. 32 & 35) are granted in part;
2. Within twenty-one days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court at the same time:
a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant; and
d. Eight copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed ...