From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durham v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2011
No. CIV S-09-0331 MCE EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-0331 MCE EFB PS.

February 2, 2011


ORDER


This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona and in forma pauperis, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 27, 2010, the assigned district judge issued an order adopting the undersigned's July 21, 2010 findings and recommendations, dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint, and granting plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 19. Then, on October 28, 2010, the undersigned granted plaintiff a ninety day extension to file his second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 21.

On January 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a further motion for an extension of time (of 60 days) to file a second amended complaint. Dckt. No. 23. Plaintiff contends that he was not released from custody until December 31, 2010 and that he therefore needs additional time to obtain an attorney and/or to prepare his second amended complaint. Id.

Plaintiff's motion for a sixty day extension of time, Dckt. No. 23, is granted. Plaintiff has sixty days from the date this order is filed to file a second amended complaint in accordance with the September 27 order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 1, 2011.


Summaries of

Durham v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2011
No. CIV S-09-0331 MCE EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Durham v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY DURHAM, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (SOLANO STATE PRISON)…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 2, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-09-0331 MCE EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2011)