Jacobson v. LeGrand et al, No. 3:2012cv00404 - Document 9 (D. Nev. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiff's 1 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice as moot. This action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which dismiss al shall count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 USC § 1915(g). The Clerk shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 07/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jacobson v. LeGrand et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 SEAN GLENN JACOBSON, 9 Plaintiff, 3:12-cv-00404-LRH-VPC 10 vs. 11 ORDER 12 13 ROBERT LEGRAND, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 In this pro se prisoner civil rights action, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint within the extended time period that he sought. 17 By an order (#5) entered on February 21, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint without 18 prejudice for failure to state a claim, subject to leave to amend within thirty days of entry of the order. 19 Plaintiff thereafter moved for an extension of an additional ninety days beyond the thirty days 20 originally allowed. Plaintiff stated in the March 15, 2013, dated motion that he was slated to be released 21 on parole on April 21, 2013. He sought the additional time so that, inter alia, he could establish a new 22 domicile, provide the Court with an updated address, and prepare an amended complaint. 23 The state corrections department’s website confirms that plaintiff has been released. Both the 24 initial thirty-day period for amendment and plaintiff’s requested ninety-day extension have elapsed. 25 Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address, has not filed an amended complaint within 26 the extension requested, and has not filed a motion for further extension. Given that plaintiff no longer 27 is in custody, the prison mailbox rule does not apply; and he therefore must in fact file his papers by the 28 applicable deadline. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Plaintiff was informed in the screening order (#5) that a failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in entry of a final judgment of dismissal. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s application (#1) to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is DENIED without prejudice as moot and that this action shall be DISMISSED without prejudice for 5 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, which dismissal shall count as a "strike" for 6 purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 8 9 The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. DATED this 19th day of July, 2013. 10 11 12 ____________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
