(PC) Gonzalez v. Akhavan

Opinion

JAIME CESAR GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01506-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AKHAVAN, et al., (ECF No. 11) Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Jaime Cesar Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 4, 2024, the Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff’s amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal is due on or before April 29, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint, filed April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff states that he is limited to once a week access to the law library and sometimes not even that. More time is required for Plaintiff to fully prepare and be able to present his case before the Court. Plaintiff requests a 30 to 60 day extension of time. (Id.) /// Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court finds that an extension of thirty days is appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiff is reminded that his first amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 11), is GRANTED; 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s March 4, 2024 screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); and 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE