Wolff
Wolff v. California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Fairbank, J.
ORDER
Directing Defendants to Respond to FRCP 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment by Friday, March 17, 2017;
Permitting Plaintiff to Reply by Apr. 14, 2017
Proceeding pro se, California state prisoner Herbert Wolff (“plaintiff’) initiated this action on February 9, 2015, by filing a complaint for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 . See Case Management / Electronic Case Filing System Document (“Doc”) 1, along with a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc 2) and a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc 3). On February 11, 2015, District Judge Lew issued an Order (Doc 5) denying the IFP application with leave to amend within thirty days, and Magistrate Judge Sagar issued an Order (Doc 6) denying without prejudice the motion for appointment of counsel. The case was randomly reassigned to the undersigned District Judge by Order entered March 4, 2015 (Doc 7).
On April 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Sa-gar issued an Order (Doc 8) dismissing the complaint without prejudice, authorizing plaintiff to amend his pleading within thirty days. That deadline elapsed on about May 23, 2015. More than two months later, still having received no amended complaint and no motion to…