(PC) Shannon v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 2:2017cv01084 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/29/18 DENYING 18 & 21 Motion to Amend the Complaint and GRANTING 20 Motion for Extension. The parties are GRANTED 30 days after the date of this order to file objections to 12 Findings and Recommendations. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAEL TYRONE SHANNON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:17-CV-1084-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s: (1) motions for leave to amend (Docs. 20 18 and 21); and (2) motion for an extension of time (Doc. 20). 21 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course within 23 21 days of serving the pleading or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 24 required, within 21 days after service of the responsive pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), 25 or within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) of the rules, whichever 26 time is earlier, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). In all other situations, a party’s pleadings may 27 only be amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 28 Because no responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12 has been filed, leave of court is not 1 1 required to amend the complaint and plaintiff may do so as a matter of course without defendant’s 2 consent. Plaintiff, however, has not submitted any proposed amended complaint. For this reason, 3 the action proceeds on the original complaint which is the subject of the court’s August 29, 2018, 4 findings and recommendations. 5 Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to file objections to the court’s August 29, 6 2018, findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be granted. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend (Docs. 18 and 21) are denied as 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 20) is granted; and 11 3. The parties may file objections to the court’s August 29, 2018, findings and 9 12 unnecessary; recommendations within 30 days of the date of this order. 13 14 15 Dated: October 29, 2018 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.