Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonyea v. Mink

January 25, 2006

JEFFREY DAVID GONYEA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TED MINK, JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF, ROY FLEER, JEFFERSON COUNTY UNDERSHERIFF, DAVID WALCHER, JEFFERSON COUNTY CHIEF, DETENTIONS DIVISION, PATSY MUNDELL, JEFFERSON COUNTY CHIEF, SUPPORT SERVICES, VINCE BARRERA, WEST METRO DETECTIVE, AND KIRK MCINTOSH, WEST METRO DETECTIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patricia A. Coan, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights case and plaintiff is proceeding pro se. All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). I entered an order on January 11, 2006, striking plaintiff's amended complaint filed December 23, 2005, and giving plaintiff one last chance to file an amended complaint. That order specified that plaintiff must file (1) a motion to amend, which is accompanied by (2) a proposed amended complaint. To date, plaintiff has filed three documents: a motion for continuance or extension, filed January 19, 2006 [doc. #162]; a second motion for continuance or extension, filed January 19, 2006 [doc. #163]; and a motion for permission to amend complaint, filed January 24, 2006 [doc. 165]. In the first two motions, which are the same except that doc. #163 is addressed to Judge Krieger, who is no longer assigned to this case, the plaintiff seeks an extension of time until "February 31, 2006" to amend his complaint. Plaintiff offers no reasons to explain why such an extension is necessary. The Jefferson County defendants (Mink, Fleer, Walcher and Mundell) filed their opposition to any extension of time on January 20, 2006. The third motion plaintiff filed appears to be a motion to amend but it essentially seeks the same relief as the motions for extension of time.

I will now strike the plaintiff's motion for permission to amend complaint, doc. # 165, because it fails to comply with the order I entered on January 11, 2006, and because it seeks the same relief as the motions for extension of time.

With regard to plaintiff's extension of time to submit a motion to amend and a proposed amended complaint, plaintiff offers no grounds which would demonstrate good cause for such extension. He states only that he needs 30 additional days to "allow adequate time to correctly research and correctly name all responsible parties to all violations fo his constitutional rights." Motion for continuance at 1. I will allow plaintiff an additional ten (10) days only to file his motion to amend accompanied by his proposed amended complaint. No further extensions will be allowed.

Accordingly, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for permission to amend complaint, doc. # 165, filed January 24, 2006 is stricken; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for continuance or time extension, doc. #162, is granted in part. Plaintiff shall file his motion to amend, accompanied by an amended complaint, no later than February 10, 2006; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for continuance or time extension, doc. #163, is moot because the relief it seeks is the same as that granted in part in doc. #162.

Dated this 25th day of January, 2006.

PATRICIA A. COAN United States Magistrate Judge

20060125

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.