# Clark v. Brown

> District Court, N.D. California · May 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071443

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071443

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, Case No. 21-09230 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
13 v . AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 DR. MOLLY BROWN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
(Docket No. 5)
16

17
18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently housed at Napa State Hospital, filed a pro se civil
19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On April 5, 2022, the Court
20 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff was directed to file an
21 amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed, i.e., no
22 later than May 3, 2022. Id.
23 On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting an extension of time to file an
24 amended complaint, which the court construes as a motion for an extension of time. Dkt.
25 No. 5. The timely filed request is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
26 using the court’s form complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies in the original
27 complaint no later than June 1, 2022.
1 || order, i.e., Case No. C 21-09230 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT”
2 || on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action
3 || to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the original, and
4 || Plaintiff may not make references to the original complaint. Claims not included in the
5 || amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended
6 || complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
7 {| Cir.1992).
8 Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended
9 || complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without
10 || prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
11 IT ISSO ORDERED.
«12 || Dated: _ May 9, 2022 tp)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
13 United States District Judge
15
16

Oo
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Order Granting Mot. for EOT to File Am. Compl.
27 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\09230Clark_eot-ac

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10071443. Public record. Not legal advice.