Tingle v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 AARON KRISTOPHER TINGLE, Case No. 24-cv-00929-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner housed at Santa Rita Jail, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 17, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim 15 because inter alia the complaint only offered vague and conclusory allegations; it was unclear 16 what happened; the complaint violated the joinder rule set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); and the 17 complaint’s allegations that he had been wrongfully convicted were likely barred by the Heck 18 doctrine. Dkt. No. 9. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to address 19 the identified deficiencies, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by July 15, 2024 or 20 face dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff has requested a 90-day extension of time to file his 21 amended complaint, stating that there has been a “second (2d) filing of a malicious and fraudlent 22 (sic) action by Alameda County with a charge of murder that had been dismissed once before 23 based on actual innocence,” and that there have been numerous violations of Plaintiff’s 24 constitutional rights committed by numerous actors acting under color of state law. Dkt. No. 10. 25 The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 26 time to file his amended complaint. It appears that Plaintiff seeks more time so that he can add 27 additional claims. However, these claims likely are barred by the joinder rule set forth in Fed. R. 1 success in the action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction or 2 sentence, and the conviction or sentence has not yet been invalidated, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 3 477, 486-87 (1994); or barred by the Younger or O’Shea abstention doctrines, which discourage 4 federal courts from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or 5 declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 6 (1971), or granting relief “relief that would entail heavy federal interference in such sensitive state 7 activities as administration of the judicial system,” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an extension of time to file his amended 9 complaint. Nonetheless, in the interests of justice, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of 10 time to September 3, 2024 to file his amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be 11 granted. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline provided in this action may result in 12 this action being dismissed without further notice to Plaintiff for failure to prosecute. 5 13 This order terminates Dkt. No. 12. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 8/1/2024

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28