Urmancheev v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.S. URMANCHEEV, Case No.: 22-CV-1039 JLS (MMP) #A075117610, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE v. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 14

15 UNITED STATES; MERRICK (ECF No. 27) 16 GARLAND; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; DEP’T OF HOMELAND 17 SECURITY; and ICE OFFICERS, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev’s Motion for Thirty-Day 21 Enlargement of Time to File Second Amended Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 27). For the 22 following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion but cautions Plaintiff not to count on 23 further extensions. 24 This action has been stuck in its preliminary stages for some time. Plaintiff filed his 25 original Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) on July 15, 2022. On October 5 of that year, 26 the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend after performing the screening 27 mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff failed to file an amended 28 complaint within the forty-five days provided by the Court, so the case was dismissed on 1 December 2, 2022. See ECF No. 5. 2 A few days later, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an amended complaint, 3 and the case was reopened. See ECF Nos. 8, 10. In the months that followed, Plaintiff 4 sought—and was granted—three additional extensions. See ECF Nos. 13–14, 16–19. 5 Plaintiff ultimately filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 20) on 6 July 14, 2023. On October 30 of that year, the Court dismissed the FAC—again after 7 performing the screening required by § 1915(e)—and granted Plaintiff an additional 8 forty-five days to file a second amended complaint. See ECF No. 22. 9 The cycle of extension requests has since repeated itself. Plaintiff asked for an 10 extension to file his second amended complaint on December 14, 2023. See ECF No. 23. 11 The Court granted that request the following day, extending Plaintiff’s deadline to 12 February 2, 2024. See ECF No. 24. On February 2, Plaintiff sought yet another extension. 13 See ECF No. 25. The Court also granted that request, pushing Plaintiff’s due date to 14 March 4, 2024. See ECF No. 26. The instant Motion was filed on that date. 15 By recounting the history of this case, the Court does not mean to suggest Plaintiff, 16 who is acting pro se, has been seeking extensions in bad faith or for lack of a desire to 17 prosecute his case. Plaintiff now asks, as he has in prior motions, for more time due to the 18 impacts of mental illness and the legal complexity of the task before him. See Mot. at 1. 19 These challenges are real, and the Court does not discount them. Further, the Court 20 appreciates that Plaintiff typically files his extension requests in a timely fashion; the vast 21 majority were filed before Plaintiff’s time had run out. Plaintiff has thus been 22 communicative and respectful of the Court’s orders. 23 Still, the Court cautions Plaintiff that this litigation cannot go on this way forever. 24 See Malloy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 19-CV-07995 SBA, 2022 WL 4139516, *3 25 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2022) (“[T]he filing of an amended complaint cannot be extended 26 indefinitely.”). As “the action cannot progress” until the second amended complaint is 27 filed, “continuous extensions would effectively constitute an indefinite stay, which are 28 disfavored.” Id. (citing Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators, Ins. Co., 1 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007)). 2 With the foregoing in mind, the Court turns to Plaintiff's Motion. Pursuant to 3 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, the Court may, for good cause, extend a filing deadline 4 a request is made “before the original time... expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 5 || Good cause appearing, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion. The Court will also sua 6 || sponte extend Plaintiff's deadline by more than the requested thirty days to accommodate 7 challenges Plaintiff points to. Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL FILE his second 8 ||amended complaint on or before April 30, 2024. If Plaintiff fails to amend within the 9 || time provided, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. 10 || Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 11 opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 12 ||complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). Absent extraordinary circumstances, no 13 || further extensions will be granted. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 5, 2024 tt 16 jen Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3