GLASS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

No. 2:16-cv-2907 KJM CKD PS.

LEIGH GLASS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 05 U.S.C. § 552
Cause: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Leigh Glass, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. By order filed January 6, 2017, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

On February 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by the District Judge of the January 6, 2017 order.1 Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 302(c)(21) provides in relevant part that the duties to be performed in civil matters by a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(3) include "[i]n Sacramento, all actions in which all the plaintiffs or defendants are proceeding in propria persona, including dispositive and non-dispositive motions and matters." L.R. 302(c)(21). The order filed January 6, 2017 was not a dispositive order in that plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

Because it appears that plaintiff may have been under a misapprehension regarding the need to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court's January 6, 2017 order, the court will grant an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not automatically stay the effect of a non-dispositive order issued by the Magistrate Judge.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than March 10, 2017 plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with the January 6, 2017 order. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

FootNotes


1. It appears that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was untimely under Local Rule 303(b) which requires such a motion to be filed within fourteen days after service of the order at issue.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases