(PC) Williams v. Corcoran State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01009-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 13 v. SIGNED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PAGE 14 CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al., LIMITATIONS OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON 15 Defendants. COGNIZABLE CLAIMS 16 (ECF No. 28) 17 FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On September 24, 2021, the Court screened the first amended complaint and found that it 22 stated cognizable claims against Defendants Pederson, Diaz, and Rios for excessive force in 23 violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed 24 to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants, or the claims were improperly 25 joined with other unrelated claims in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. (ECF No. 26 16.) Plaintiff was granted leave to either file a second amended complaint, not to exceed twenty 27 (20) pages in length, or to notify the Court in writing that he was willing to proceed only on the 28 claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) 1 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 30, 2021, which was twenty-five 2 pages in length and included an additional thirty-one pages of exhibits and attachments. (ECF 3 No. 24.) The complaint also lacked any signature. The Court therefore ordered the second 4 amended complaint stricken from the record and directed Plaintiff to file a signed second 5 amended complaint, not to exceed twenty pages in length, or to notify the Court in writing that he 6 is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (ECF No. 27.) 7 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a 45 to 90 day extension of time to file 8 his second amended complaint, filed March 7, 2022. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff states that he is 9 scheduled to go to L.A. County for a March 18, 2022 court date on an appeal matter, and he will 10 be separated from his property and this case’s file. Plaintiff does not know how long he will be in 11 L.A. County for this appeal. (Id.) 12 Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested 13 extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff will be granted a forty-five day extension of 14 time to respond to the Court’s order. 15 If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff is reminded that his 16 amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named 17 defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 18 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 19 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 21 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 22 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 23 “buckshot” complaints). 24 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 25 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s second 26 amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 27 pleading.” Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to 28 incorporate by reference. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 28), is GRANTED; 3 2. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL either: 4 a. File a signed second amended complaint, not to exceed twenty (20) pages in 5 length, curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s September 24, 2021 6 screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); or 7 b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a second amended 8 complaint and he is willing to proceed only on the claims against Defendants 9 Pederson, Diaz, and Rios for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 10 Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and 11 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without 12 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 9, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28