Javier Zamora v. James Hill, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for a 15-day extension to file a First Amended Complaint after a prior dismissal without prejudice. The court granted the motion, extending the deadline to June 22, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint granted“Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than June 22, 2026.” | agree with court The court applied the mailbox rule correctly to determine the filing date of the motion, citing Houston v. Lack. The grant of the extension is a discretionary procedural matter based on 'good cause,' which is a standard and appropriate exercise of judicial authority for a pro se litigant seeking a short extension to comply with a court order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the mailbox rule to establish the timeliness of the motion for extension. The decision to grant the extension is a routine exercise of discretion supported by the 'good cause' standard. The footnote correctly cites binding authority regarding the consequences of failing to file the amended complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER ZAMORA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2810-WQH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 vs. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 15 JAMES HILL, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 Plaintiff Javier Zamora (“Plaintiff” or “Zamora”) is proceeding pro se with a civil 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 26, 2026, the Court dismissed Zamora’s 21 Complaint without prejudice and with leave to file a First Amended Complaint by May 25, 22 2026. (See ECF No. 5.) On May 24, 2026,1 Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of 23 24 25 1 Notations on the envelope in which the document was received indicate Zamora turned the document 26 over to prison staff for mailing on May 24, 2026. (See ECF No. 8 at 5.) Although the motion was not docketed until May 28, 2026, under the “mailbox rule,” a document is deemed to be “filed” when a 27 prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270–72 (1988); see also Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he Houston 28 1 |} Time, in which he seeks 15 additional days to submit his First Amended Complaint. (ECF 2 || No. 8.) 3 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an 4 ||Extension of Time (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended 5 Complaint no later than June 22, 2026.” 6 7 ||Dated: June 3, 2026 BME: Me Z Ma 8 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 25 ? Tf Plaintiff fails to timely file a timely First Amended Complaint, the Court will enter a final Order 26 || dismissing this civil action based both on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and § 1915A(b)(1), and failure to prosecute in compliance with a court 27 || order requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does 28 not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).