Opinion
No. C 07-04681 SBA (PR).
April 15, 2010
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he asserts three claims for relief against twenty-one Defendants, all officials and employees at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). On March 5, 2010, the Court reviewed the complaint and issued an "Order on Review of Complaint; and Directing Plaintiff to File Proof of Service or Show Cause." The Court found the Plaintiff's allegation that SQSP medical staff failed to provide adequate medical treatment (for his hemangiomas) stated a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants. However, none of these Defendant had been served; therefore, the Court directed Plaintiff, who paid the filing fee in this matter, to "either provide the Court with proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the Defendants against whom he alleges his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, or otherwise show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice as to each unserved Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (Mar. 5, 2010 Order at 7.) Plaintiff was also directed to file an amendment to the complaint containing amended ADA and Section 504 claims against SQSP and the CDCR. All remaining claims were dismissed. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file his response to the Court's March 5, 2010 Order.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's request for a ninety-day extension of time: (1) to file his amendment to the complaint; and (2) to show proof that he has served those Defendants against whom he alleges his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, or to show cause why such Defendants should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Having read and considered Plaintiff's request, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a ninety-day extension, but finds that a brief extension is warranted. The time in which Plaintiff may: (1) file his amendment to the complaint; and (2) either provide the Court with proof of service on those Defendants against whom he alleges his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, or show cause why such Defendants should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice, will be extended up to and including May 10, 2010.
Failure to do so by the new deadline shall result in: (1) the dismissal without prejudice of his ADA and Section 504 claims against SQSP and the CDCR; and (2) the dismissal without prejudice as to the remaining deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against the unserved Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m).
This Order terminates Docket no. 17.
IT IS SO ORDERED.