United States District Court, E.D. California
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
seeks an extension of time of 60 days to file his opposition
to Motions to Dismiss pending on this Court's May 18,
2017, hearing calendar. He also seeks permission to take
filed his 84 page complaint together with 40 pages of
exhibits alleging civil rights violations by several
individuals and institutional defendants on May 5, 201, ECF
No. 1, together with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
ECF No. 2. He was granted IFP status by Magistrate Judge
Allison Claire on May 26, 2016. ECF No. 3. In her order
granting that status, the Magistrate Judge also dismissed the
complaint and gave the plaintiff 30 days to amend in
accordance with instructions given him in the Order.
15, 2016, plaintiff filed both objections to the court's
order, ECF No. 4 and a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 5. On
June 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Claire issued an Order
dismissing this Complaint with 30 days leave to amend noting
that the Amendment was “nearly identical” to the
original Compliant, again providing guidance on how to plead
sufficiently and limited any amendment filed to 25 pages
in length. ECF No. 6.
5, 2016 plaintiff filed Objections to the Order in which he
declined to amend his complaint which he argued met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, upon which
the Magistrate based her order in principal part, ECF No. 7,
and on August 24, 2016 the Magistrate granted plaintiff an
additional 30 days to file his amendment, and imposing the
same 25 page limit on an further pleading he chose to file.
ECF No. 8.
September 20, 2016 plaintiff sought to withdraw his request
for IFP status and paid the court's filing fee, ECF No.
1. On December 5, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted
permission to withdraw from IFP status and gave the plaintiff
an additional 30 days to file a Second Amended Complaint. ECF
No. 11. On December 29, 2016 plaintiff sought a 30 day
extension of time to file his second amended complaint, ECF
No. 12, and that request was granted by an Order issued
January 4, 2017. ECF No. 13.
February 1, 2017 plaintiff submitted his Second Amended
Complaint which ran to 148 pages. ECF No. 14, and summons
were issued to the named defendants. ECF No. 15. On March 21,
2017, Motions to Dismiss were served by counsel for various
groups of defendants. ECF Nos. 28, 32, 34, 35 and
March 29, 2017 District Judge Kimberly Mueller issued an
order that transferred this case from Judge Nunley's
docket to hers and from Magistrate Judge Claire's docket
to the undersigned. ECF No. 45. On the same day, a new Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint based upon which
summonses had been issued which included a 22 page Memorandum
of Points and Authorities and 179 pages for which defendants
sought Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 46) It is this Motion that
is the subject of plaintiff's request for an additional
60 days to respond, and for early discovery.
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
motion will be denied as the District Court's Order of
March 29, 2017 at ECF No. 45 effectively dismissed the
presently pending Amended Complaint and directed a new filing
not to exceed 25 pages. Therefore there is no pending
complaint upon which this court may act.
FOR EARLY DISCOVERY
same reason as the extension of time request is denied, this
Motion will also be denied, i.e., there is no pending
Complaint as to which any discovery is appropriate at this
time. PENDING ...