(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al, No. 1:2010cv02139 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Sixty Days to File Second Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/3/2011. Amended Complaint Due Within Sixty Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI, 9 10 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02139-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (DOC. 30) 11 12 13 MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF SIXTY DAYS TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Krzysztof Wolinski (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2010, 18 Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. The 19 action was transferred to the Fresno Division on November 16, 2010. On May 11, 2011, the 20 Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim with leave to 21 amend. On May 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. 22 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in Susanville, 23 California. Plaintiff’s amended complaint removed all mention of allegations against any 24 Defendants at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) or California State Prison - Sacramento (“CSP- 25 Sac”), which were previously alleged in Plaintiff’s original complaint. In his amended 26 complaint, Plaintiff names only prison officials at HDSP as Defendants. Plaintiff had been 27 granted leave to amend only to cure the deficiencies identified in his original complaint. 28 Plaintiff’s removal of all his previous allegations against NKSP defendants did not comply with 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the Court’s order. On August 23, 2011, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendations 2 recommending dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to obey a court order. 3 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection, filed September 16, 2011. Doc. 32. 4 Plaintiff’s objections are a request for extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff 5 contends that his legal property was removed and he needs additional time to cure the 6 deficiencies in his complaint. 7 Good cause having been presented, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. However, the 8 Court warns Plaintiff of the following. Plaintiff’s original complaint concerned actions at NKSP 9 and CSP-Sac. The events at each prison were unrelated and belonged in different, separate 10 actions. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against 11 unrelated defendants belong in different suits”). If Plaintiff intends on alleging only claims 12 against HDSP Defendants, then the Court will dismiss the action for failure to obey a court order, 13 without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a separate, new action. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend 14 to cure the deficiencies identified in his original complaint. Claims against HDSP would appear 15 to be unrelated to claims arising at NKSP or CSP-Sac.1 The Court greatly disfavors any further 16 extensions of time. 17 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 23, 2011, are VACATED; 19 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty days from the date of service of this order in which 20 21 to file his second amended complaint; and 3. 22 23 24 Failure to comply with the Court’s order stated herein will result in dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a October 3, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 1 28 The Fresno Division is the proper venue for claims arising at NKSP. The Sacramento Division is the proper venue for claims arising at CSP-Sac or HDSP. 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.
