Smith v. Auburn Police Department Officers

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 11 RONALD A. SMITH, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00079-TL 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. 13 AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT 14 OFFICERS et al, 15 Defendant(s). 16

17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald A. Smith’s motion to extend the time 18 to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10. Having considered the relevant record, Mr. Smith’s 19 motion is GRANTED for the reasons below. 20 On January 26, 2023, the Court previously dismissed this action without prejudice 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and granted leave to amend the complaint by February 25, 22 2023. Dkt. No. 8 at 7. The Court also consolidated this action with another substantially similar 23 case filed by Plaintiff and dismissed the other action without prejudice on the same grounds. Dkt. 24 No. 9 at 3–4. 1 On February 24, one day before the deadline to amend, Plaintiff moved to extend the 2 time to file a consolidated amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff provided no reasoning for 3 the requested extension, no explanation for why he waited to seek an extension until the day 4 before his deadline,1 and no details on how long of an extension he requires. However, given that

5 Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and has not previously received an extension of time, the Court will 6 grant a one-time 30-day extension to file an amended complaint. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s deadline 8 to file a consolidated amended complaint is EXTENDED to March 27, 2023. As previously 9 warned, failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this 10 consolidated action. 11 Dated this 7th day of March 2023. 12 A 13 Tana Lin United States District Judge 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 1 “[I]t is axiomatic that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.” Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). This Court requires litigants to file motions for extensions of time at least three business days in advance of the deadline in question. See Judge Tana 23 Lin, Standing Order for All Civil Cases (last updated Apr. 26, 2022), https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/LinStandingOrderreCivilCases_0.pdf (“Untimely briefs or 24 responsive pleadings may be summarily denied, stricken, or ignored.”).