Thompson v. RJD CF Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID A. THOMPSON, Case No.: 24-cv-00357-MMA (DDL) CDCR #AU-9252, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiff, 13 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO vs. FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 14

JAMES S. HILL, RJDCF Warden; 15 [Doc. No. 9] L. SCHOBELOCK, R.N.; R. BARENCHI, 16 CME, S. GATES, Chief Health Care Correspondence; JOHN/JANE DOE, Appeals 17 Coordinator; J. MOECKLY, Reviewing 18 Authority; A. REYES, ADA Coordinator; Dr. HODGES, Chief Physician and Surgeon; 19 R. BLANDING, Custody Appeals 20 Representative; B. CAMPBELL, Health Care Compliance Analyst; V. ANDERSON, Health 21 Care Grievance Representative; Dr. 22 KAUFFMAN, Clinical Psychologist; B. MILLIUM, Educator, 23 Defendants. 24

25 Plaintiff David A. Thompson is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 26 (“RJDCF”) in San Diego, and proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 27 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 15, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In 28 Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) because it failed to state a claim upon 2 which relief can be granted. See Doc. No. 8. The Court provided Plaintiff with a 3 explanation of his pleading deficiencies, and granted him 45 days leave in which to fix 4 them. Id. at 8‒17. August 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of 5 time in which to amend. See Doc. No. 9. 6 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 7 “‘Strict time limits . . . ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting 8 from a pro se . . . plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court 9 deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. 10 Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 11 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se 12 complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay was result of prison-wide lockdown). 13 Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant an 14 extension of time for “good cause” if the moving party requests the extension before the 15 applicable deadline expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “[R]equests for extensions of 16 time made before the applicable deadline has passed should ‘normally . . . be granted in 17 the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse 18 party.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 19 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 (3d 20 ed. 2004)). 21 Plaintiff claims RJCDF has one law library serving four prison yards, and that he 22 has been able to get into the library only once over the last two months. See Doc. No. 9 23 at 1. He requests an additional 90 days time in which to properly comply with the July 24 15, 2024 Order due to his “extreme limited access to the law library,” his “ignorance [of] 25 the law,” and so he “does not have to repeat this process again.” Id. at 1‒2.1 26 27 1 The Court reminds Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint does not require him to conduct 28 1 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 9), and 2 extends the time in which he may file an Amended Complaint in compliance with its July 3 2024 Order. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must address all the pleading 4 || requirements set out in that Order, and must be submitted to the Clerk of the Court for 5 || filing by November 22, 2024.” 6 If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint on or before then, the Court will 7 enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim 8 ||upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), 9 || and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See 10 || Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take 11 || advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 12 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: August 26, 2024 15 Whe Leleg bos 16 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 17 18 19 that plausibly show each Defendant he seeks to sue, “through [his or her] own 20 individual actions, [] violated the Constitution,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and that therefore, he is entitled to relief in light of the pleading standards already 21 |}identified for him in the Court’s July 15, 2024 Order. See Rivera v. San Diego Central Jail, Case No. 19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS), 2020 WL 1062950, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing Rosenblum v. Ellis, No. 1:05-CV-01473-LJO-GSA-PC, 2010 WL 2471148, at *2 23 ||(E.D. Cal. June 10, 2010) (“The amended complaint does not require legal analysis. Plaintiff must simply allege the facts that entitle him to relief, and state the legal cause of action for each claim.”’)). 25 The Court cautions that because this extension of time is generous, no further extensions 26 will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances outside of □□□□□□□□□□□ 27 |;control. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (noting a court’s inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’’).