From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dawson v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 26, 2022
2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P

10-26-2022

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. JEFF LYNCH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 19, 2022, the undersigned issued an order screening the complaint and findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order be denied. ECF No. 22. In screening the complaint, the undersigned found that plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claims and provided plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations but did not request an extension of time to file objections to the screening order. ECF Nos. 25, 26. After plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, he was given another opportunity to do so and cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff has now filed a response stating that he does not understand what the order means and that he is still within the time to file objections. ECF No. 28.

It appears that, in requesting an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations regarding the motions for a temporary restraining order, plaintiff intended to also seek an extension of time to object to (or seek reconsideration by the district judge of) the screening order. The current deadline for filing objections the findings and recommendations is November 4, 2022. In light of plaintiff's clarification, he will be granted an extension of time to file objections to both the screening order and the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's response to the order directing him to file an amended complaint will also be construed as a motion to extend his deadline to file an amended complaint until after he files objections and those objections are ruled on by the assigned district judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall have an additional fourteen days, up to November 18, 2022, to file objections to the August 19, 2022 order and findings and recommendations.

2. Plaintiff's response to the order directing him to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 28) is construed as a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and the Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket accordingly.

3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. The deadline for filing an amended complaint is VACATED and will be re-set accordingly upon the resolution of any objections plaintiff may file to the screening order or his failure to file any such objections within the time permitted.


Summaries of

Dawson v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 26, 2022
2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022)
Case details for

Dawson v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. JEFF LYNCH, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 26, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022)