Woods v. Chappell et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01291

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Hon. Jeffrey S. White on 7/15/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, Case No. 15-cv-01291-JSW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING v. PENDING MOTIONS 9 10 KEVIN CHAPPELL, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20, 21 Defendants. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. On July 30, 2015, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it contained 15 a vast number of improperly joined claims against many different Defendants. He was granted 28 16 days to file the amended complaint, but thereafter received two extensions of that deadline — one 17 in October 2015 and one in January 2016. His amended complaint was due on February 16, 2016. 18 He has not amended his complaint nor has he shown good cause for his failure to do so in the six- 19 plus months allotted to him. Accordingly this case is DISMISSED. 20 On January 25, 2016, and May 16, 2016, he filed two motions to "compel" the Court to 21 mail him a copy of his complaint so he can amend it. He alleges that his mother paid the 22 "California Legal Support Group" to send him a "copy of this case" in approximately March 2016, 23 but he has not received it. This does not show cause for his failure to timely amend his complaint. 24 He does not explain why he did not keep a copy of the complaint for himself, nor does he explain 25 why he waited approximately six months after the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 26 — i.e. until January 2016 — before he first requested a copy of the complaint. Even if he paid a 27 third party to procure it for him, as he alleges, he does not explain why he waited another two 28 months — i.e. until approximately March 2016 — before doing so. He also does not explain why 1 he never wrote to the Clerk of Court requesting a copy of the complaint. In any event, Plaintiff 2 indicates in his first motion to compel that he "cured" the improper joinder of his original 3 complaint by filing two other civil actions (Case Nos. 15-5136 JD and 15-5135 JD); as a result, it 4 appears that he is pursuing his claims in different actions. The motions to "compel" (ECF Nos. 5 19, 21) are DENIED. If Plaintiff still wants a copy of his complaint or any other filings in this 6 action, he may obtain such a copy by completing a request for photocopies form and submitting it 7 to the Clerk of Court, or by writing a letter to the Clerk of Court requesting such a form. 8 Plaintiff has also filed a motion "for discovery under Rule 56(f)" requesting that the Court 9 "delay its ruling" until he has obtained a "production of documents" from the Court. It is unclear 10 what ruling he seeks to delay. In any event, he may not obtain discovery from the Court. The 11 proper way to obtain documents from the Court is to request photocopies from the Clerk of Court, 12 as described above. The motion for "discovery" (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: July 15, 2016 16 17 JEFFREY S. WHITE 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2