From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Supanich v. Rundle

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma
Apr 26, 2010
Case No. C10-5008RBL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. C10-5008RBL.

April 26, 2010


ORDER


THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff's Motions to Amend Complaint [Dkt. #24] and to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant's Motions [Dkt. #25]. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Plaintiff seeks again to amend his Complaint. The Court has once denied the motion ruling that the then proposed Amended Complaint named as defendants individuals and entities over which it appeared the Court lacked jurisdiction and otherwise failed to conform to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). [Dkt. #6]. Plaintiff was given 30 days to retrieve his proposed Amended Complaint (which with copies filled a bankers box) from the Clerk's Office or it would be destroyed. ( Id.) Plaintiff's present motion to amend does not include a conforming proposed Amended Complaint nor does Plaintiff indicate in the motion what amendments Plaintiff intends. Because the Court has not been informed what claims and what defendants the proposed Amended Complaint contains, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [Dkt. #24] is DENIED.

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #12] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's response to the motion is due May 24, 2010 and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is renoted for May 28, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.


Summaries of

Supanich v. Rundle

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma
Apr 26, 2010
Case No. C10-5008RBL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2010)
Case details for

Supanich v. Rundle

Case Details

Full title:MARK SUPANICH, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN RUNDLE, et ux, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Apr 26, 2010

Citations

Case No. C10-5008RBL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2010)