Christopher Hawkins v. Derrick Williams, San Diego County, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Malcolm F. Marsh (author)
Analysis
The court vacated a judgment dismissing a pro se prisoner's § 1983 action for failure to prosecute and granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court extended the deadline to file the amended complaint to April 20, 2026, finding that the motion was constructively filed before the judgment was entered and that good cause existed for the extension.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Vacating the March 16, 2026 judgment dismissing the action and reopening the case“Good cause shown, the Court VACATES its March 16, 2026, judgment and ORDERS the case to be reopened.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'mailbox rule' (Houston v. Lack) to determine that the motion was filed before the judgment became final. Because the dismissal was based on the plaintiff's failure to act within a specific deadline, and the plaintiff demonstrated that the motion was mailed before that deadline passed (and before the judgment was entered), the dismissal for failure to prosecute was premature. Vacating the judgment to allow the plaintiff to proceed with the amendment is the appropriate procedural remedy to preserve the plaintiff's right to be heard. |
Granting the motion to file an amended complaint“Plaintiff's Motion to file an amended complaint is GRANTED” | agree with court The court found 'good cause' for the extension based on the plaintiff's explanation of interruptions in the amendment process and the constructive filing date. In the context of pro se prisoner litigation, courts generally have discretion to grant extensions to ensure due process, particularly when the initial dismissal was without prejudice and the plaintiff acted within the constructive filing window. |
Extending the time to file an amended complaint to April 20, 2026“the Court EXTENDS the time to file an amended complaint to on or before April 20, 2026.” | agree with court The extension provides a reasonable period for the plaintiff to file the amended complaint. The specific date is a matter of judicial discretion and appears reasonable given the dates involved (motion mailed March 10, order issued March 18). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the application of the mailbox rule to the prisoner's motion, which prevents the dismissal for failure to prosecute from being final until the court has the opportunity to rule on the pending motion. The court's decision to vacate the premature dismissal and grant the extension aligns with due process principles in pro se litigation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER HAWKINS, Case No.: 25-cv-03183-AJB-BLM CDCR #CC-0532, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) VACATING JUDGMENT AND 14 REOPENING CASE;
15 DERRICK WILLIAMS, SAN DIEGO (2) GRANTING MOTION TO FILE 16 COUNTY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; and SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SAN 17 DIEGO COUNTY JAIL and (3) EXTENDING TO TIME TO FILE 18 DOES 1-10, AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 Defendants. 20 21 On October 31, 2025, Plaintiff Christopher Hawkins, an inmate at the San Diego 22 Central Jail at the time of the events, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos. 24 1–2.) On December 18, 2025, the Court granted IFP and dismissed the Complaint without 25 prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. 26 (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff was notified of the deficiencies of his pleading and granted leave to 27 amend on or before February 2, 2026. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was informed that if he failed to 28 timely amend, the Court would dismiss this action for failure to state a claim and failure to 1 || prosecute. (/d. (quoting Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Ifa plaintiff 2 || does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert 3 || the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”’)).) 4 On March 16, 2026, having not heard from Plaintiff or received an amended 5 ||complaint, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim 6 |/upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8§ 1915(e)(2)(B)Gii) & 7 || 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to prosecute. (Doc. Nos. 4-5.) That same day, the Court 8 received Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint requesting an extension 9 || of time to amend due to interruptions in his process of amending. (Doc. No. 6.) □□□□□□□□□□□ 10 || motion is dated March 9, 2026, and was mailed from the prison on March 10, 2026, prior 11 entry of judgment. (/d. at 2-3.) The motion was therefore constructively filed prior to 12 || entry of final judgment, although still beyond the time set to amend. See Houston v. Lack, 13 ||487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988) (a pleading is constructively filed when a prisoner delivers it 14 the prison authorities for forwarding to the court). 15 Good cause shown, the Court VACATES its March 16, 2026, judgment and 16 |} ORDERS the case to be reopened. Plaintiff's Motion to file an amended complaint is 17 |}GRANTED and the Court EXTENDS the time to file an amended complaint to on or 18 || before April 20, 2026. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: March 18, 2026 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □ em