Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-2293 JAM CKD P
05-02-2017
ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. M. IDEMUDIA, Defendant.
ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff filed this pro se prisoner action on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On November 9, 2016, the undersigned determined that service was appropriate for defendant Idemudia and directed the clerk to send plaintiff service documents, to be completed within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was granted three extensions of time to submit service documents and informed that no further extensions would be granted. (ECF No. 28; see ECF Nos. 26 & 35.)
To date, however, plaintiff has not submitted service documents for defendant Idemudia. Rather, he seeks a fourth extension of time and also moves to amend the complaint. (ECF Nos. 36 & 37.) Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be given freely when justice requires. Here, plaintiff does not attach a proposed amended complaint as required by Local Rule 137(c). In the absence of any reviewable pleading, the court does not find that justice requires leave to amend in this instance. ////
Moreover, plaintiff has not shown good cause for additional time to submit service documents. As he has failed to do so despite multiple extensions of time, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 36) is denied; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 37) is denied.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 2, 2017
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/herr2293.fusm