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.

Christopher D. Schneider v. Amador County; Linda Van Vleck; John Hahn; and Does 1 Through 40

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 26, 2011

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMADOR COUNTY; LINDA VAN VLECK; JOHN HAHN; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 40, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 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 September 29, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 36.

On October 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a stay, or in the alternative, for a thirty day extension of time to file his second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 37. Plaintiff contends that on October 13, 2011, he "was forced to defend himself" in a hearing in Amador County regarding the potential seizure of his two horses pursuant to California Penal Code section 597.1(a). Id. at 2; see also Cal. Penal Code 597.1(a) ("Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor."). Plaintiff contends that a hearing was held and that after hearing testimony from multiple witnesses, the prosecution dismissed the case. Id. However, plaintiff contends that he "does not yet have any record, or findings from this hearing," and that he needs the findings in order to properly file his second amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff further contends that "[d]ue to these events and the citation leading up to them, plaintiff . . . was not able to devote any time to 'researching and preparing his [second amended complaint]." Id. Therefore, plaintiff requests that this case "be stayed for a reasonable amount of time (120-180 days?)" until Amador County can furnish plaintiff with the findings from the October 13 hearing. Id. at 3. In the alternative, plaintiff seeks a thirty day extension of time to file his second amended complaint. Id.

Although a stay of this action is not warranted at this time, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint will be granted. If plaintiff needs additional time beyond the extension provided herein within which to file his second amended complaint, he may file a further motion for an extension of time prior to the new deadline for filing his second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint, Dckt. No. 37, is granted;

2. Plaintiff has until December 16, 2011 to file a second amended complaint, as provided in the September 29, 2011 order;

3. Failure to timely file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed; and

4. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's amended complaint within fourteen days from the date a second amended complaint is filed.

20111026

© 1992-2011 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.