IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 6, 2012
ROBERT BENYAMINI, PLAINTIFF,
B. COLVIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court's August 3, 2012 Screening Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). That order informed plaintiff that he could proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Colvin, or alternatively, that he could amend his complaint to attempt to cure the complaint's deficiencies, which were identified for plaintiff in the order. Plaintiff states that he does not have access to his legal property and that he needs at least 90 days to do more research before he can comply with the court's order. The court finds that a 90-day extension of time is unnecessary, as filing an amended complaint should not require extensive research. To file an amended complaint in accordance with the court's order, plaintiff need only submit a short and plain statement of his claim showing that he is entitled to relief. An amended complaint should not include legal citations and should need not contain unnecessarily detailed factual allegations. Because plaintiff states that he does not have access to his legal property, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to re-serve on plaintiff the August 3, 2012 Screening Order and the February 6, 2012 complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall re-serve the August 3, 2012 order (Dckt. No. 15) and the February 6, 2012 complaint on plaintiff (Dckt. No. 1); and
2. Plaintiff's August 17, 2012 motion (Dckt. No. 16) is granted to the extent that plaintiff's has 30 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court's August 3, 2012 order. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.