IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 30, 2011
KRISTI ROHLFING, PLAINTIFF,
F. DON SOKOL, AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona and in forma pauperis, was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 27, 2011, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), but provided plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Dckt. No. 6.
On August 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time to file her amended complaint. Dckt. No. 9. Plaintiff contends that "the counsel who was going to take [her] case . . . passed away a couple weeks ago" and plaintiff "need[s] more time to find counsel." Id. In the alternative, plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Id.
Because plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is warranted under Local Rule 230(j), plaintiff's request that the court reconsider its August 1, 2011 order denying her request for appointment of counsel is denied. However, plaintiff's request for a forty-five day extension is granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the August 1, 2011 order denying her request for appointment of counsel is denied.
2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dckt. No. 9, is granted.
3. Plaintiff has until October 17, 2011 to file an amended complaint, as provided in the July 27, 2011 order. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint." Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.