(PC) Landis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

RICHARD HAROLD LANDIS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01490-KES-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (ECF No. 10)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTIONS AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REHABILITATION, et al., FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 11) Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Richard Harold Landis (“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 March 4, 2024, the Court screened the complaint and found that it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, and was filed prematurely without first exhausting Plaintiff’s administrative remedies. (ECF No. 8.) The Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days. (Id.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice. (Id. at 16.) On April 23, 2024, following Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time and a letter regarding his motion for extension of time, both filed May 1, 2024. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) Plaintiff states that he was unable to meet the deadline to respond to the Court’s order due to medical issues that prevented him from getting out of bed for 2 weeks straight, and he had no access to his legal work because it was put away while he was at the hospital. Plaintiff was also scheduled for surgery on April 30. Plaintiff just got his legal property back. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate the pending findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a first amended complaint is granted in part. The Court finds that an extension of thirty days, rather than sixty, is appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Any amended complaint shall be limited to 25 pages in length, including exhibits. Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 23, 2024, (ECF No. 10), are VACATED; /// 2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, (ECF No. 11), is GRANTED IN PART; 3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s March 4, 2024 screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); 5. Any amended complaint shall be limited to 25 pages in length, including exhibits; and 6. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE