Juarez v. Hill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for a 30-day extension of time to file an amended complaint after the court had previously granted leave to amend. The court granted the motion, extending the deadline to file the amended complaint to July 21, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for extension of time to file amended complaint granted“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. No. 8, and EXTENDS the time in which he may comply with its April 16, 2025 order.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), which requires a showing of 'good cause' for an extension requested before the deadline expires. The plaintiff's assertion of a learning disability, transfer to a mental health facility, and reliance on a fellow inmate for assistance constitute sufficient good cause, particularly in the context of a pro se prisoner. The court correctly noted that such requests should normally be granted absent bad faith or prejudice, neither of which is present in the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A)) and the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding pro se prisoners and extensions of time. The court's finding of 'good cause' is supported by the specific facts alleged by the plaintiff (learning disability, transfer, assistance from inmate). The warning regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate and supported by Lira v. Herrera.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LUIS JUAREZ, CDCR #AI-3330, Case No.: 24-cv-2315-MMA-LR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 12 vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 JAMES HILL, Warden, et al., 14 Defendants. [Doc. No. 8] 15 16 17 Plaintiff Luis Juarez, currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution 18 (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 16, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 20 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and screened his complaint sua 21 sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 6. The Court 22 found that while Plaintiff alleged a plausible excessive force claim against Richard J. 23 Donovan Correctional Facility Officers Perez and Abdi, the remainder of his complaint 24 failed to state any other claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted. Id. at 5‒11. 25 Therefore, the Court provided Plaintiff with an explanation of his pleading deficiencies, 26 and granted him 45 days leave in which to either fix them in an amended complaint or to 27 notify the Court of his intent to proceed only with his adequately pleaded claims against 28 Defendants Perez and Abdi. Id. at 10‒12. 1 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 30-day extension of time in 2 which to file an amended complaint. See Doc. No. 8. “‘Strict time limits . . . ought not to 3 be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se . . . plaintiff’s incarceration 4 prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 5 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also 6 Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal 7 of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where mere 30-day delay was result 8 of prison-wide lockdown). Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 9 the Court may grant an extension of time for “good cause” if the moving party requests 10 the extension before the applicable deadline expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 11 “[R]equests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should 12 ‘normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief 13 or prejudice to the adverse party.’” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 14 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Practice 15 and Proc. § 1165 (3d ed. 2004)). 16 Plaintiff claims he has a learning disability, has been transferred to CCI, a “mental 17 health facility,” and is receiving assistance from a fellow inmate to amend his pleading. 18 See Doc. No. 8 at 1. Plaintiff claims he is almost finished, but needs an additional 30 19 days to complete and submit his amended complaint. Id. Good cause appearing, the 20 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. No. 8, and EXTENDS the time in which he 21 may comply with its April 16, 2025 order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must address 22 all the pleading requirements set out in that order and must be submitted to the Clerk of 23 the Court for filing on or before July 21, 2025. 24 If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his alternate 25 intention to proceed only with the claims adequately pleaded in his original complaint on 26 or before July 21, 2025, the Court will enter a final order dismissing this civil action 27 based both on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute in 1 compliance with a court order. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) 2 a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district 3 ||}court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”’). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: June 5, 2025 Ladki Mb - {cluelll— 6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28