1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, No. 1:20-cv-00547-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 CDCR, et al., (Doc. Nos. 21, 23) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff George E. Jacobs, IV is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 14, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered a screening order concluding 21 that plaintiff’s complaint, as filed, failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, 22 and 29. (Doc. No. 11 at 24.) The magistrate judge granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint 23 within thirty days to conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Over the next 24 eleven months, the following series of events took place, which prevented this case from moving 25 forward. 26 On September 16, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-to-forty-five-day extension of 27 time to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff made his motion on 28 the grounds that he had no access to “legal supplies, materials, or books/case law,” that he had not 1 been able to access the law library, and that he had been slowed due to his disability. (Id.) The 2 magistrate judge granted the motion for a thirty-day extension on September 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 3 13.) 4 On October 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a second motion for a forty-five-day extension of time 5 to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff’s motion was unsigned. (Id. at 6 3.) On October 20, 2020, the magistrate judge entered an order striking plaintiff’s second motion 7 because it was unsigned, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 8 131(b). (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) However, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court extended the 9 deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal by an 10 additional thirty days. (Id.) 11 On December 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a third motion seeking a forty-five-day extension of 12 time to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff noted in his motion that 13 the prison where he was confined had been placed in complete quarantine, preventing him from 14 visiting the prison law library and otherwise restricting his movement. (Id. at 3.) The court 15 granted plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five-day extension on December 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 17.) 16 On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court properly join claims 17 or, in the alternative, grant him a fourth extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 18 No. 18.) Plaintiff explained in his motion that the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 19 in Corcoran (“CSATF-Corcoran”), where he was held, had been locked down due to a prison riot 20 on December 22, 2020, making it again impossible for him to access the law library. (Id. at 2.) 21 Plaintiff pointed to page 13, line 6 of the court’s screening order (“If Plaintiff fails to comply, the 22 Court will choose which properly joined claims to screen”) and requested that the court “choose 23 which claims are properly joined for screening and dismiss the remaining claims without 24 prejudice.” (Id.) 25 On January 15, 2021, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request for screening of the 26 properly joined claims in the action, explaining that the court “had already screened the 27 complaint, found that it fail[ed] to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, 28 and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.” (Doc. No. 19 at 2.) The magistrate 1 judge instead granted plaintiff a fourth extension of forty-five days to file an amended complaint 2 or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) 3 On March 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a fifth motion for extension of time to file an amended 4 complaint. (Doc. No. 20.) Therein, plaintiff explained that he had “managed to complete most of 5 the amended complaint” and needed ten extra days to finish the “Causes of Action” sections. (Id. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff also explained that he had run out of writing paper and needed more time “to 7 secure legal supplies” to finish his amended complaint. (Id.) 8 On March 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order granting plaintiff a fifth extension 9 of ten days to file an amended complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. No. 21.) 10 The magistrate judge stated that this order would be the final extension of time, as almost seven 11 months had passed since the court’s screening order had been issued. (Id. at 2.) 12 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within the 13 ordered time period. Accordingly, on April 6, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and 14 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s 15 failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 16 No. 11.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff with notice that 17 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) 18 On April 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a sixth motion for an extension of time to file an 19 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 24.) In his motion, plaintiff explained that he had been “placed 20 up for transfer to another prison,” that his personal property had been packed for shipping, and 21 that “[a]ll of [plaintiff’s] legal work[,] including his 2nd amended complaint was confiscated.” 22 (Id. at 2) On April 5, 2021, plaintiff was transferred to the California State Prison in Lancaster 23 (“CSP-Lancaster”), where he was subsequently quarantined and unable to access his legal 24 materials or the prison law library. (Id. at 2–3.) 25 On April 16, 2021, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 26 to file an amended complaint, noting that, according to plaintiff’s own motion, his “personal and 27 legal property was not confiscated until April 2, 2021, nearly two weeks after he should have 28 completed his amended complaint and submitted it to the Court for filing.” (Doc. No. 25 at 2.) 1 The magistrate judge, however, noted that plaintiff was transferred before receiving the court’s 2 findings and recommendations, and granted an extension of time for him to file objections to the 3 findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) The court directed plaintiff to file objections within 4 thirty (30) days from the date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 5 On May 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the 6 court’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff explained that he had been 7 placed in solitary confinement on May 13, 2021. (Id. at 1.) According to plaintiff, all of his 8 property, including his legal work, was confiscated and had not been returned at the time of filing 9 of the request for an extension of time. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff represented that he was also 10 informed by prison officials that he may be transferred to another prison. (Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, No. 1:20-cv-00547-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 CDCR, et al., (Doc. Nos. 21, 23) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff George E. Jacobs, IV is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 14, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered a screening order concluding 21 that plaintiff’s complaint, as filed, failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, 22 and 29. (Doc. No. 11 at 24.) The magistrate judge granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint 23 within thirty days to conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Over the next 24 eleven months, the following series of events took place, which prevented this case from moving 25 forward. 26 On September 16, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-to-forty-five-day extension of 27 time to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff made his motion on 28 the grounds that he had no access to “legal supplies, materials, or books/case law,” that he had not 1 been able to access the law library, and that he had been slowed due to his disability. (Id.) The 2 magistrate judge granted the motion for a thirty-day extension on September 18, 2020. (Doc. No. 3 13.) 4 On October 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a second motion for a forty-five-day extension of time 5 to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff’s motion was unsigned. (Id. at 6 3.) On October 20, 2020, the magistrate judge entered an order striking plaintiff’s second motion 7 because it was unsigned, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Local Rule 8 131(b). (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) However, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court extended the 9 deadline for the filing of plaintiff’s first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal by an 10 additional thirty days. (Id.) 11 On December 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a third motion seeking a forty-five-day extension of 12 time to file a response to the screening order. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff noted in his motion that 13 the prison where he was confined had been placed in complete quarantine, preventing him from 14 visiting the prison law library and otherwise restricting his movement. (Id. at 3.) The court 15 granted plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five-day extension on December 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 17.) 16 On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court properly join claims 17 or, in the alternative, grant him a fourth extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 18 No. 18.) Plaintiff explained in his motion that the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 19 in Corcoran (“CSATF-Corcoran”), where he was held, had been locked down due to a prison riot 20 on December 22, 2020, making it again impossible for him to access the law library. (Id. at 2.) 21 Plaintiff pointed to page 13, line 6 of the court’s screening order (“If Plaintiff fails to comply, the 22 Court will choose which properly joined claims to screen”) and requested that the court “choose 23 which claims are properly joined for screening and dismiss the remaining claims without 24 prejudice.” (Id.) 25 On January 15, 2021, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request for screening of the 26 properly joined claims in the action, explaining that the court “had already screened the 27 complaint, found that it fail[ed] to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, 28 and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.” (Doc. No. 19 at 2.) The magistrate 1 judge instead granted plaintiff a fourth extension of forty-five days to file an amended complaint 2 or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.) 3 On March 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a fifth motion for extension of time to file an amended 4 complaint. (Doc. No. 20.) Therein, plaintiff explained that he had “managed to complete most of 5 the amended complaint” and needed ten extra days to finish the “Causes of Action” sections. (Id. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff also explained that he had run out of writing paper and needed more time “to 7 secure legal supplies” to finish his amended complaint. (Id.) 8 On March 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order granting plaintiff a fifth extension 9 of ten days to file an amended complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. No. 21.) 10 The magistrate judge stated that this order would be the final extension of time, as almost seven 11 months had passed since the court’s screening order had been issued. (Id. at 2.) 12 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within the 13 ordered time period. Accordingly, on April 6, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and 14 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff’s 15 failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 16 No. 11.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff with notice that 17 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) 18 On April 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a sixth motion for an extension of time to file an 19 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 24.) In his motion, plaintiff explained that he had been “placed 20 up for transfer to another prison,” that his personal property had been packed for shipping, and 21 that “[a]ll of [plaintiff’s] legal work[,] including his 2nd amended complaint was confiscated.” 22 (Id. at 2) On April 5, 2021, plaintiff was transferred to the California State Prison in Lancaster 23 (“CSP-Lancaster”), where he was subsequently quarantined and unable to access his legal 24 materials or the prison law library. (Id. at 2–3.) 25 On April 16, 2021, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 26 to file an amended complaint, noting that, according to plaintiff’s own motion, his “personal and 27 legal property was not confiscated until April 2, 2021, nearly two weeks after he should have 28 completed his amended complaint and submitted it to the Court for filing.” (Doc. No. 25 at 2.) 1 The magistrate judge, however, noted that plaintiff was transferred before receiving the court’s 2 findings and recommendations, and granted an extension of time for him to file objections to the 3 findings and recommendations. (Id. at 3.) The court directed plaintiff to file objections within 4 thirty (30) days from the date of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) 5 On May 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the 6 court’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff explained that he had been 7 placed in solitary confinement on May 13, 2021. (Id. at 1.) According to plaintiff, all of his 8 property, including his legal work, was confiscated and had not been returned at the time of filing 9 of the request for an extension of time. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff represented that he was also 10 informed by prison officials that he may be transferred to another prison. (Id. at 2.) Because of 11 these circumstances, plaintiff informed the court he could not meet the deadline for the filing of 12 his objections. (Id.) On May 25, 2021, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s second motion for 13 a thirty-day extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14 27.) 15 On June 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a letter with the court detailing that he had been unable to 16 work on his objections. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff explained that he had received less than 25% of 17 his legal work back after being placed in solitary confinement. (Id. at 2.) Additionally, plaintiff 18 stressed to the court that the facility to which he was transferred had “no functioning law library,” 19 and that plaintiff has no function of his right arm and hand. (Id. at 1.) The magistrate judge 20 construed plaintiff’s letter as a motion for an extension of time, and, on June 16, 2021, granted 21 him an additional thirty days to file any objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 22 No. 29.) 23 On June 28, 2021, plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 (Doc. No. 30.) In his objections, plaintiff thanks “the Honorable Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 25 McAuliffe for the patience and impartiality demonstrated throughout the process and for giving 26 thoughtful consideration to plaintiff’s moving papers for time extensions.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 27 explains that he had been in “a precarious situation for months,” alleging that prison officials had 28 been retaliating against plaintiff for “filing and trying to maintain this lawsuit.” (Id. at 2–3.) 1 Plaintiff claimed that he faced several obstacles to prosecuting his case, including “[l]ack of law 2 library access, unsuspecting bus transfers, [and] confiscation of personal property.” (Id. at 3.) 3 Plaintiff also writes that being placed in solitary confinement “for absolutely no fault of [his] own 4 has just about ‘extinguished’ any fight plaintiff has left.” (Doc. No. 30 at 3.) Finally, plaintiff 5 explains in his objections that he failed to file his first amended complaint by the March 22, 2021 6 deadline because he miscalculated that deadline, incorrectly believing that he had thirty days to 7 finish his complaint, instead of fourteen. (Id.) Plaintiff “assume[s] full responsibility for the 8 miscalculation of the deadline [and] misinterpretation of the court’s order,” but notes that he has 9 faced “extreme circumstances which [have] caused him a lot of stress and at times ‘depression.’” 10 Id. 11 Plaintiff requests the “mercy” of the court to grant plaintiff relief from a judgment or order 12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 13 excusable neglect. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also expresses that his miscalculation of the filing deadline 14 was not intentional and assures the court that “his First Amended Complaint can be submitted 15 with all the deficiencies cured.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not dispute any of the court’s findings and 16 instead simply requests the court set aside its order. (Id.) 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 18 de novo review of the case. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the court has decided to 19 grant plaintiff Jacobs one final twenty-one (21) day extension to file an amended complaint or a 20 notice of voluntary dismissal. Since the screening order issued on August 14, 2020, giving 21 plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiff has allegedly faced some obstacles that may 22 have contributed to his failure to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 1 at 15, 12, 14, 16, 23 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, and 30.) Nonetheless, because almost eleven months have passed since the 24 screening order issued, this will be the final extension of time granted for this purpose. Plaintiff 25 has advised the court that he is prepared to file an amended complaint addressing the previously 26 noted deficiencies in his original complaint. The court intends to hold him to those assurances. 27 Plaintiff is advised that any failure to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal 28 will result in the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. The court also advises plaintiff that if 1 | he chooses to file an amended complaint, it should conform to the requirements listed in the 2 | August 14, 2020 screening order. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff's amended complaint shall also not 3 | exceed twenty-five pages in length and should be brief, while also stating what each named 4 | defendant allegedly did that led to the deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. □□□□ at 24.) 5 | Additionally, plaintiff cannot add new or unrelated claims to his amended complaint. (/d.) (citing 6 | George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 2007)). Lastly, any amended complaint filed by 7 | plaintiff must be “complete in itself” and able to stand on its own “without reference to the prior 8 | or superseded pleading.” (/d.) (citing Local Rule 220). 9 Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to file his amended complaint or notice of voluntary 10 | dismissal of this action within twenty-one (21) days of the service of this order. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a 2 Dated: _ July 12, 2021 J al, A 4 7 a 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28