(PC) Hammler v. The State of California

Opinion

ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00785-NONE-HBK

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO CORRECT NAME OF DEFENDANT AND REQUEST FOR COPIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (Doc. No. 22) Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RULING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MOTIONS

(Doc. Nos. 23, 25)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. No. 24)

This matter comes before the court upon initial review of this case that was reassigned to the undersigned. (See Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff Allen Hammler, a current state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 1). Pending review are the following motions filed by plaintiff: (1) motion to correct name of defendant and for copies of documents (Doc. No. 22); motion for ruling (Doc. No. 23); motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 24); and motion for formal acknowledgement of prior motions (Doc. No. 25). The court addresses each motion in seriatim. 1. Motion to Correct Name of Defendant and for Copies of Documents On December 11, 2020, plaintiff moved to correct a defendant’s name and for copies of documents referenced by the court in an earlier order. (See generally Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff requests the case’s “caption and record” be changed from “S. Savoie” to the “State of California, et al.” (Id. at 1). A review of the docket and reveals none of the currently named defendants are named “S. Savoie.” Further, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 20). To the extent plaintiff wishes to alter the names of any defendants, he may do so in his amended complaint. See Beavers v. New Penn Fin. LLC, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2018). Thus, no court action is necessary to achieve the relief plaintiff seeks and thus this component of his motion is denied. Plaintiff also requests copies of two previous filings: his motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 14) and his motion for a ruling on his motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 16). Prison inmates are not entitled to receive complimentary copies of their filings. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). However, as a one-time courtesy to expedite this matter, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to furnish plaintiff with copies of these earlier pleadings. Any further copies will come at plaintiff’s expense, and he is urged to keep copies of all court documents going forward. 2. Motion for Ruling On January 21, 2020, plaintiff moved for a ruling on his motion “to correct name of defendant and for document needed to comply with order.” (Doc. Nos. 22-23). This order rules on that motion, so his relief is granted. 3. Motion for Extension of Time On January 25, 2021, plaintiff moved for additional time to file his amended complaint. (Doc. No. 24). On November 16, 2020, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 45 days of receiving the order. The instant motion is therefore untimely. Nonetheless, before recommending the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and timely comply with the court’s orders, the court will grant plaintiff a limited extension of time and a final opportunity to amend his complaint. As ordered below, plaintiff must deliver his amended complaint to prison officials for mailing to the Court no later than April 23, 2021. Plaintiff is cautioned that, if he fails to timely file an amended complaint, this matter will be subject to dismissal without prejudice without further notice, and no further extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. 4. Motion for Acknowledgement of Prior Motions On February 19, 2021, plaintiff moved for acknowledgement of his pending motions. (Doc. No. 25). The court’s ruling on the pending motions effectively acknowledges these motions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's motion to correct name of defendant and for document needed to comply with order (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s motion to correct defendant’s name is DENIED for the reasons stated supra. Plaintiffs motion for copies is GRANTED to the extent the Clerk of Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a one-time courtesy copy of his previous motions (Docs Nos. 14, 16) with this Order. 2. Plaintiff's motion for ruling (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff must deliver his amended complaint to prison officials for mailing to the court no later than April 23, 2021. Plaintiff’s failure to timely file his amended complaint may result in a dismissal of this action. 4. Plaintiff's motion for acknowledgement of prior motions (Doc. No. 25) is Dated: _ March 16, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh fackte HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE