Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 RegisterActionDate "2017-02-06" @default.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has moved for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. # 24 ). Plaintiff's motion does not explain why the amendments he seeks to add were not included in the prior amended complaint. Moreover, plaintiff has not attached a copy of a proposed amended complaint and he furnishes little detail about how he proposes to amend the substantive allegations of the complaint. In the meantime, defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. # 18 ) for which plaintiff has sought and received an extension of time until February 20, 2017, to file a response (Doc. # 21 ). Because it is unclear that plaintiff's proposed amended complaint will overcome the arguments raised for dismissal by defendants under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984), I decline to permit plaintiff to file a second amended complaint at this time. Instead, plaintiff shall timely file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss by February 20, 2017. If plaintiff wishes to contend that he could file an amended complaint that overcomes the arguments for dismissal that have been advanced by defendants, then he may attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint as an exhibit to his response to defendants' motion to dismiss and explain why the proposed amended complaint would overcome defendants' arguments for dismissal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/6/2017. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/06/2017)" @default.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 AdministrativeID "26" @default.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 hasJudgeReference SJ002512 @default.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de19 @default.
- ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de27 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ctd;;3:16-cv-01954_de25 @default.