Steven Refugio Rodriguez v. Ryan Taiarol, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN REFUGIO RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:21-cv-01958 DAD SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RYAN TAIAROL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who was formerly incarcerated in state prison, is proceeding pro se on his 18 operative third amended complaint (“TAC”), which the undersigned determined stated a 19 cognizable Fourteenth Amendment falsification of evidence claim against defendants Taiarol, 20 Mamaril, Abdallah, and Paris.1 ECF No. 45. On January 2, 2026, defendants Taiarol, Mamaril, 21 and Abdallah filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on 12(b)(6). ECF 22 No. 61. After plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition, the undersigned, sua sponte, granted 23 plaintiff an additional 21 days to respond given his documented health issues. ECF No. 67. 24 Plaintiff has now filed a motion for continuance, which the undersigned construes as a 25 request for a 30-day extension to time to file an opposition. ECF No. 68. Plaintiff explains that 26

27 1 On February 12, 2026, District Judge Drozd adopted the findings and recommendations that the TAC’s remaining claims be dismissed and terminated Gutierrez, Moreno, and the City of 28 Stockton as defendants from this action. 1 | he needs more time to locate the documents from his criminal appellate case and retrieve other 2 | documents from his criminal defense attorneys. Id. at 2-3. Defendants oppose the continuance 3 || on grounds that plaintiff has already received an extension of time and has not shown good cause 4 | for another. ECF No. 69. 5 In light of plaintiffs pro se status and documented health issues, the undersigned will 6 || grant him one more extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is 7 || advised that going forward, the undersigned will not consider his inability to retrieve documents, 8 | including the purported eight-volume appellate file, to be good cause for another extension. 9 || While those documents may be helpful at a later stage of the case, the standard of review on a 10 | motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is quite limited. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the 11 | plaintiffs complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 12 | relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 13 | Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court may consider all materials 14 || incorporated into the complaint by reference, as well as evidence properly subject to judicial 15 | notice. Weston Fam. P’ship LLLP v. Twitter, Inc., 29 F.4th 611, 617-18 (9th Cir. 2022). 16 Finally, plaintiff states that he has not viewed the court’s order regarding the hearing on 17 | February 12, 2026. ECF No. 68 at 2. Plaintiff is informed that in that order, the undersigned 18 || vacated the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss that was set for that date. Under our local 19 | rules, motions in so-called “prisoner actions” like this one are submitted on the record without 20 | oral argument. Local Rule 230(/). 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a continuance, 22 || construed as a request for a 30-day extension of time (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall 23 || file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff is again 24 | advised that a failure to timely respond may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of 25 || the motion. Local Rule 230(/). 26 || DATED: February 17, 2026 □□ 27 Z SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE