DeGeus v. Department of Child Support Services San Diego District Attorney

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 24, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID DEGEUS, Case No.: 24-cv-0055-WQH-AHG

Plaintiff, 11 ORDER v. 12 13 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES and SAN 14 DIEGO DISTRICT 15 ATTORNEY, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Request for Extension to File Second Amended 19 Complaint (ECF No. 10) filed by Plaintiff David DeGeus. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 22 5.) On July 8, 2024, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC for failure to state a 23 claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted sixty (60) days 24 to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 11. On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the 25 Request for Extension to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) 26 II. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give 28 leave” for a party to amend his pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 1 || Nevertheless, the Court also has “the inherent authority to manage [its] dockets ... with a 2 || view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 3 ||47 (2016); see Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 4 ||2014) (“[T]he district court’s discretion in denying amendment ts ‘particularly broad’ when 5 has previously given leave to amend.” (quoting Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 6 ||616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004))). 7 Plaintiff seeks a six-month extension “to cure the Younger abstention barrier by 8 || bringing ‘the state proceedings Plaintiff discusses in the FAC’ to conclusion.” (ECF No. 9 || 10 at 1 (quoting ECF No. 7 at 6—7).) He also intends “to cure the defects referenced in [the 10 || Court’s Order] with regard to [42 U.S.C. § 1983].” Jd. (citing ECF No. 7 at 7-9). 11 The Court concludes that a limited extension is warranted to permit Plaintiff to cure 12 || the defects he identifies in his request. However, Plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing 13 || that “justice so requires” an extension of six months, particularly given that the Court has 14 ||previously afforded Plaintiff opportunities to amend his Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 |} 15(a)(2); see ECF No. 4 at 10; ECF No. 7 at 11. 16 CONCLUSION 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Extension to File Second 18 || Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) is granted in part. No later than sixty (60) days from 19 || the entry of this Order, Plaintiffmay file an amended complaint, entitled “Second Amended 20 Complaint,” which cures the defects in the FAC identified by the Court (see ECF No. 7). 21 ||Ifno amended complaint is filed, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. 22 ||Dated: September 24, 2024 BE: eg Ze. A a 23 Hon, William Q. Hayes 4 United States District Court 25 26 27 28