Opinion
21-04167 BLF (PR)
12-13-2021
JORGE ALBERTO FARIAS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW ATCHLEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND AS UNNECESSARY (DOCKET NO. 14)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at the Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Dkt. No. 1. On September 24, 2021, the Court screened the complaint and found it stated cognizable claims of excessive force, denial of his right to access to the courts, and an ADA claim. Dkt. No. 11 at 10. The Court granted leave to amend with respect to the remaining claims or, in the alternative, to file notice that he wishes to proceed on the cognizable claims and strike all other claims from the complaint. Id. When the deadline passed with no response from Plaintiff, the Court ordered service of the complaint of the cognizable claims on Defendants and dismissed the deficient claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 12.
On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “request for enlargement of time (45) days to amend, with actual facts, also documents allegations.” Dkt. No. 14. In the request, Plaintiff states that he wants to “provide and comply with adequate documentation in support with ‘Plaintiffs claims,' and ‘excessive force.'” Id It appears that Plaintiff seeks to amend facts in support of the three cognizable claims identified above, which includes excessive force. See supra at 1. The Court has already ordered these claims served on Defendants based on the allegations in the complaint. Dkt. No. 12. Accordingly, it is not necessary for Plaintiff to provide further documentation in support of these claims to proceed in this matter. Even so, Plaintiff is free to file supplemental material provided he serves Defendants with the documents. He shall do so within thirty-five (35) days from the date this order is filed in order to give Defendants sufficient time to review the additional material before filing their dispositive motion, which is due by February 16, 2022. Id.
Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to amend is DENIED as unnecessary.
This order terminates Docket No. 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.