1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE RIVERA, CDCR #G‒16129, Case No.: 19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED 14 SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL; COMPLAINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF; 15 JOHN & JANE DOES, (ECF No. 9) 16 Defendants. 17
18 On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Jorge Rivera, while incarcerated at the San Diego County 19 Central Jail (“SDCCJ”),1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 20 that the SDCCJ, the San Diego County Sheriff, and several unidentified SDCCJ officials 21 interfered with his right to religious worship and denied him access to the courts, his 22 medical devices, medical treatment, and clean drinking water. See generally ECF No. 1 23 (“Compl.”). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26
27 1 Rivera later filed a Notice of Change of Address and is now incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in 28 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On January 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 (“IFP”), conducted an initial screening of his Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint sua 4 sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 5 See ECF No. 8. The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days’ leave in which to file an amended 6 complaint addressing all the pleading deficiencies the Court identified. Id. at 11‒12; see 7 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court 8 should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 9 determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted)). 10 On March 2, 2020, approximately one week before his amended complaint was due, 11 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion requesting an extension of time to file his amended 12 complaint. See ECF No. 9 (“Mot.”). 13 ANALYSIS 14 Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may 15 grant an extension of time for “good cause” where the moving party requests the extension 16 before the applicable deadline expires. Id. Rule 6(b) must be “‘liberally construed to 17 effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. 18 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 “[The 19 Federal Rules] should be construed, administered, and employed . . . to secure the just, 20 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”); accord Turner 21 v. Tierney, 678 F. App’x 580, 581 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, “‘[s]trict time limits . . . ought 22 not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se . . . plaintiff’s incarceration 23 prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 24 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also 25 Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal 26 of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay was result 27 of prison-wide lockdown). 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff claims he requires an “extensive extension” of time because he is 2 “attempting to put together discovery motions,” including a “summons to produce 3 documents and interrogatories” in addition to his amended complaint. See Mot. at 1. He 4 also asks that the Court provide him with a copy of his original Complaint. Id. 5 Plaintiff’s request is timely, and he is still incarcerated and proceeding without 6 counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 7 that the court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing 8 on the merits of their claim due to . . . technical procedural requirements”). Construing his 9 request in the light most favorable to him, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an 10 extension of time within which to amend his complaint. See Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136. 11 Plaintiff is reminded, however, that his amended complaint does not require any case 12 citation or legal analysis. Instead, it must simply allege facts already known to him that 13 plausibly entitle him to relief in light of the legal precedent already identified by the Court 14 in its January 28, 2020 Order. See Rosenblum v. Ellis, No. 1:05-CV-01473-LJO-GSA-PC, 15 2010 WL 2471148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2010) (advising pro se prisoner that the “lack 16 of access to the law library is not sufficient grounds for a motion for extension of time in 17 which to file an amended complaint”); id. (“The amended complaint does not require legal 18 analysis. Plaintiff must simply allege the facts that entitle him to relief, and state the legal 19 cause of action for each claim.”). 20 Further, while Rivera does need to identify the persons he seeks to sue by name in a 21 § 1983 suit, see ECF No. 8 at 10‒12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must 22 name all the parties[.]”), discovery is otherwise premature because he must first file an 23 amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 662, 678-79 (2009) (noting that court “does not unlock the doors of discovery” if the 25 plaintiff fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face” and is “armed with 26 nothing more than conclusions”); see also Stine v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:18-CV-0684 27 KJN P, 2018 WL 2771332, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2018) (“Once plaintiff has an operative 28 complaint on file, and defendants have filed an answer, the court will issue a discovery and 1 scheduling order.”); Bettencourt v. Parker, No. 1:16-CV-00150-DAD-BAM PC, 2016 WL 2 4137242, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4) (denying prisoner’s requests to begin discovery and set 3 matter for trial as premature in light of court’s duty to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4796313 5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016); Johnson v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 14-2519- 6 PHXDGCMEA, 2015 WL 390837, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2015) (“If Plaintiff files a first 7 amended complaint, the Court will conduct statutory screening of the first amended 8 complaint, order service of the first amended complaint, if appropriate, and issue a 9 scheduling order setting discovery deadlines after Defendants have answered the 10 complaint.”). 11 Finally, while the Court is under no obligation to provide Plaintiff with free 12 photocopies of his own pleadings, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE RIVERA, CDCR #G‒16129, Case No.: 19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED 14 SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL; COMPLAINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF; 15 JOHN & JANE DOES, (ECF No. 9) 16 Defendants. 17
18 On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Jorge Rivera, while incarcerated at the San Diego County 19 Central Jail (“SDCCJ”),1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 20 that the SDCCJ, the San Diego County Sheriff, and several unidentified SDCCJ officials 21 interfered with his right to religious worship and denied him access to the courts, his 22 medical devices, medical treatment, and clean drinking water. See generally ECF No. 1 23 (“Compl.”). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26
27 1 Rivera later filed a Notice of Change of Address and is now incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in 28 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On January 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 (“IFP”), conducted an initial screening of his Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint sua 4 sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 5 See ECF No. 8. The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days’ leave in which to file an amended 6 complaint addressing all the pleading deficiencies the Court identified. Id. at 11‒12; see 7 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court 8 should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 9 determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted)). 10 On March 2, 2020, approximately one week before his amended complaint was due, 11 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion requesting an extension of time to file his amended 12 complaint. See ECF No. 9 (“Mot.”). 13 ANALYSIS 14 Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may 15 grant an extension of time for “good cause” where the moving party requests the extension 16 before the applicable deadline expires. Id. Rule 6(b) must be “‘liberally construed to 17 effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. 18 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 “[The 19 Federal Rules] should be construed, administered, and employed . . . to secure the just, 20 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”); accord Turner 21 v. Tierney, 678 F. App’x 580, 581 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, “‘[s]trict time limits . . . ought 22 not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se . . . plaintiff’s incarceration 23 prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 24 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also 25 Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal 26 of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay was result 27 of prison-wide lockdown). 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff claims he requires an “extensive extension” of time because he is 2 “attempting to put together discovery motions,” including a “summons to produce 3 documents and interrogatories” in addition to his amended complaint. See Mot. at 1. He 4 also asks that the Court provide him with a copy of his original Complaint. Id. 5 Plaintiff’s request is timely, and he is still incarcerated and proceeding without 6 counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 7 that the court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing 8 on the merits of their claim due to . . . technical procedural requirements”). Construing his 9 request in the light most favorable to him, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an 10 extension of time within which to amend his complaint. See Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136. 11 Plaintiff is reminded, however, that his amended complaint does not require any case 12 citation or legal analysis. Instead, it must simply allege facts already known to him that 13 plausibly entitle him to relief in light of the legal precedent already identified by the Court 14 in its January 28, 2020 Order. See Rosenblum v. Ellis, No. 1:05-CV-01473-LJO-GSA-PC, 15 2010 WL 2471148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2010) (advising pro se prisoner that the “lack 16 of access to the law library is not sufficient grounds for a motion for extension of time in 17 which to file an amended complaint”); id. (“The amended complaint does not require legal 18 analysis. Plaintiff must simply allege the facts that entitle him to relief, and state the legal 19 cause of action for each claim.”). 20 Further, while Rivera does need to identify the persons he seeks to sue by name in a 21 § 1983 suit, see ECF No. 8 at 10‒12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must 22 name all the parties[.]”), discovery is otherwise premature because he must first file an 23 amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 24 662, 678-79 (2009) (noting that court “does not unlock the doors of discovery” if the 25 plaintiff fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face” and is “armed with 26 nothing more than conclusions”); see also Stine v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:18-CV-0684 27 KJN P, 2018 WL 2771332, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2018) (“Once plaintiff has an operative 28 complaint on file, and defendants have filed an answer, the court will issue a discovery and 1 scheduling order.”); Bettencourt v. Parker, No. 1:16-CV-00150-DAD-BAM PC, 2016 WL 2 4137242, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4) (denying prisoner’s requests to begin discovery and set 3 matter for trial as premature in light of court’s duty to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4796313 5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016); Johnson v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 14-2519- 6 PHXDGCMEA, 2015 WL 390837, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2015) (“If Plaintiff files a first 7 amended complaint, the Court will conduct statutory screening of the first amended 8 complaint, order service of the first amended complaint, if appropriate, and issue a 9 scheduling order setting discovery deadlines after Defendants have answered the 10 complaint.”). 11 Finally, while the Court is under no obligation to provide Plaintiff with free 12 photocopies of his own pleadings, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990) 13 (per curiam) (noting prisoners have no constitutional right to free photocopies), overruled 14 on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350–55 (1996), it will direct the Clerk 15 of the Court to provide him with a copy of his original Complaint (ECF No. 1), so that he 16 may review its deficiencies in conjunction with the Court’s January 28, 2020 screening 17 Order (ECF No. 8). See Martines v. Klein, No. 12-CV-1868-DMS-DHB, 2013 WL 18 4026758, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013) (directing Clerk to provide pro se prisoner with a 19 copy of his deficient complaint “for his use in amending”). 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension 22 of Time to File His Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and DIRECTS the Clerk of the 23 Court to provide him with a copy of his original Complaint (ECF No. 1). 24 Plaintiff SHALL FILE his amended complaint on or before April 13, 2020. The 25 amended complaint must cure all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s 26 January 28, 2020 Order and must be complete by itself without reference to his original 27 pleading. Any Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in Plaintiff’s amended 28 complaint will be considered waived. 1 Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint on or before April 13, 2020, the 2 ||Court SHALL ENTER a final Order dismissing the case based both on his failure to state 3 claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 4 |}1915A(b) and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a Court Order requiring 5 ||amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (‘If a plaintiff does 6 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 7 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.’’). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: March 5, 2020 . tt 1] pee Janis L. Sammartino 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5