Opinion
Case No. 13-cv-05773-JD
06-24-2014
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 19
This pro se plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 10, 2014, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff was granted several extensions, and the amended complaint was due on June 19, 2014. The Court recently denied plaintiff's motion for a stay. Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for a stay (Docket No. 19) and a pleading titled 'amended complaint' (Docket No. 17), but this filing does not discuss the underlying claims of the action.
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff described many instances of misconduct from 2004 to 2008 that were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. He was given an opportunity to amend and present allegations that occurred no more than four years before he filed this case. Instead, plaintiff's amended complaint discusses problems receiving his legal property after a recent transfer.
Plaintiff's motion for a stay is denied for the same reasons set forth in the Court's prior order. This action is dismissed without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action he must file an amended complaint as described in the Court's screening order presenting timely allegations and a motion to reopen the case. If plaintiff wishes to raise claims regarding his legal property he may file a separate action.
CONCLUSION
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice as described above.
2. The motion for a stay (Docket No. 19) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2014
/s/_________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge