Smith v. Pappenfus

Full title: REGINALD SMITH, Plaintiff, v. DR. PAPPENFUS, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 23, 2007

1:06-CV-00749-ALA P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2007)

Opinion

1:06-CV-00749-ALA P.

October 23, 2007

ORDER

ARTHUR ALARCON, Circuit Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 12, 2007, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. On May 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his amended complaint. On May 18, 2007, the court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file his amended complaint. That order was returned to the court as undeliverable.

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff had not filed his amended complaint and the magistrate judge assigned to this matter filed findings and recommendations recommending that this matter be dismissed. That filing was also returned to the court as undeliverable. On September 5, 2007, Plaintiff informed the court of his new address in another matter. However, Plaintiff still did not file his amended complaint. On September 24, 2007, this court adopted the findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2007, and dismissed this matter with prejudice. All orders were served on Plaintiff's address of record. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reopen this case.

In his motion, Plaintiff states that he never received a copy of the order granting Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amended complaint. That order was returned to the court on August 8, 2007, as undeliverable.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff does not claim that he did not receive a copy of the court's April 12, 2007 order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. That order specifically informed Plaintiff that "failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with [that] order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the court's order." To date Plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint. Further, all court orders where served on the Plaintiff's address of record as provided by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case is DENIED.