Raul Santana Salgado v. Roberto Arias

Opinion

RAUL SANTANA SALGADO, Case No.: 23-cv-2099-MMA (BLM) CDCR #F-57811 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST Plaintiff, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO vs. FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

ROBERTO ARIAS, UNKNOWN JOHN Doc. No. 7 DOE, Defendants.

Plaintiff Raul Santana Salgado (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed at Calipatria State Prison, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 See Doc. No. 1. On January 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Doc. No. 6. The Court gave Plaintiff 45 days to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Id. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (“Motion”), in which Plaintiff elaborates on some facts

1 The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of ] contained in the original complaint. See Doc. No. 7. Having already granted Plaintiff leave to file an FAC, the Court liberally construes the Motion as a request for an extension of time to do so. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions[.]”). Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time. must file a First Amended Complaint on or before April 15, 2025.” Dated: March 1, 2024

Mita la -(eigllr HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO United States District Judge ? As discussed in this Court’s January 29, 2024 Order, an amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any previous version of his pleading; Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled’’); Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). If Plaintiff fails to timely amend, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).