DeCastro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

* * *

JOSE DECASTRO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00580-APG-EJY

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Rule 59(e) Motion. ECF No. 60. The Rule 59(e) motion Plaintiff apparently seeks to file is currently due November 29, 2023. Plaintiff chose to initiate this action and to proceed pro se. Proceeding pro se does not excuse Plaintiff from following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or granting him more leeway to comply with Court orders than a party represented by counsel. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The above said, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file whatever it is he believes is appropriate to file with respect to the Court’s Order at ECF No. 45. The Court advises, however, that Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 27, 2023 (ECF No. 61) mooting issues arising from or relating to Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Exeltis USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 779 F.Appx. 486, 487 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lacey v. Maricopa Cty, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012)) (“As a general rule, ‘an amended complaint super[s]edes … the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.’”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 60) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is given through and including December 5, 2023 to file the motion he believes remains pertinent to the Court’s Order at ECF No. 45. No further extensions will be granted. Except as stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Rule 59(e) Motion is DENIED. Dated this 28th day of November, 2023.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE