DEARWESTER v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 2:13-cv-2064 MCE DAD P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141117716
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff's motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff's pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Since plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 1 Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff's motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff's pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Since plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. 1 Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time t..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff's motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a prisoner, plaintiff's pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Since plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.1
Plaintiff has also requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff's request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. No. 21) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 22) is granted; and
3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file and serve an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Any reply shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(1).
FootNotes
1. It appears that plaintiff primarily wishes to amend his complaint so that it is typed instead of handwritten. Plaintiff's handwriting is legible, so he is advised that he need not amend his complaint for this reason.
Source: Leagle
