From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jul 24, 2020
1:18-cv-3820 (NLH) (AMD) (D.N.J. Jul. 24, 2020)

Opinion

1:18-cv-3820 (NLH) (AMD)

07-24-2020

JOHN DAVID BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-10, et al., Defendants.

APPEARANCES: John David Baker, No. 57359-018 FCI Fort Dix P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Plaintiff Pro se


MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

APPEARANCES : John David Baker, No. 57359-018
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640

Plaintiff Pro se HILLMAN , District Judge

WHEREAS, the Court screened Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint on April 21, 2020 and permitted Plaintiff's mail tampering claims to proceed, see ECF No. 55; and

WHEREAS, the Court dismissed all defendants except the John Doe defendants against whom Plaintiff raised his mail tampering claims, see id. at 7-8; and

WHEREAS, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint identifying the John Doe defendants so as to effectuate service, see id. Alternatively, the Court informed Plaintiff that he could request a subpoena be served on FCI Fort Dix through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, see id.; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a "motion to report defendants' misconduct and to request an extension of time" on June 22, 2020, see ECF No. 57; and

WHEREAS, the Court granted Plaintiff until July 31, 2020 to comply with the Court's April 21 order. ECF No. 58. "[N]on-compliance with the Court's April 21 order within the time set by the Court shall result in a dismissal without prejudice," Id.; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time state he "wishes to wait until his Motion for Reconsideration is ruled upon before proceeding," ECF No. 59 at 1; and

WHEREAS, there is no pending motion for reconsideration. The only filing dated June 12, 2020 is the "motion to report defendants' misconduct and to request an extension of time" that was docketed on June 22, ECF No. 57. That motion did not request reconsideration of any prior order,

THEREFORE, IT IS on this 24th day of July, 2020

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 59, is denied. Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2020 to comply with the Court's April 21 order; and it is further

ORDERED that non-compliance with the Court's April 21 order by July 31, 2020 shall result in a dismissal without prejudice; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this order and a print-out of the docket to Plaintiff by regular mail.

s/ Noel L. Hillman

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey


Summaries of

Baker v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jul 24, 2020
1:18-cv-3820 (NLH) (AMD) (D.N.J. Jul. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Baker v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DAVID BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES 1-10, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Jul 24, 2020

Citations

1:18-cv-3820 (NLH) (AMD) (D.N.J. Jul. 24, 2020)