Lonergan v. Providence Health Services
||October 21, 2020
||US District Court for the District of Oregon
||Portland (3) Office
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Other
|Cause of Action:
||28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|October 21, 2020
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(l), a party may file an amended pleading once as a matter of course. Additionally, Plai ntiff has been Ordered to file an Amended Complaint if he wishes to further proceed with this action. Plaintiff simply needs to file the Amended Complaint; no motion is required at this time. Due to recent delays with mail delivery, the court exten ds the deadline to file the Amended Complaint from November 6, 2020 to November 9, 2020. Again, the court cautions Plaintiff to timely file his Amended Complaint and warns him for the final time that no further deadline extensions will be permitte d. LR 16-3. Failure to file the Amended Complaint by November 9, 2020, may result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24 ) is DENIED. In light of three previous pro bono appointment terminations , the court ordered that no further pro bono appointments would be made. (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 21 .) The court adheres to that ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of October, 2020, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 10/21/2020.) (pjg)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?