Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Stephen DRAGASITS, Case No.: 24-cv-1257-AGS-SBC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 5 v. (ECF 47) AND SUA SPONTE EXTENDING AMENDMENT 6 Correctional Officer ARCHULETA, et al., DEADLINE 7 Defendants. 8 9 In his most recent motion, unrepresented plaintiff Stephen Dragasits seeks three 10 forms of relief, which are addressed in turn below. 11 First, he “[a]sks the district court to review the submitted documents [that] show [he] 12 was timely in seeking an appeal.” (ECF 47, at 2.) This Court previously denied Dragasits’s 13 motion to reconsider due to, among other things, its untimeliness. Dragasits now explains 14 that his reconsideration motion was untimely because he did not know “the option for 15 reconsideration was still on the table with the district court” at the time he appealed. (Id. 16 at 3.) Given this context, he hopes that proof of his timely appeal will convince this Court 17 to overlook his tardiness and reach the merits of his reconsideration motion. Yet, even if 18 Dragasits’s late filing were forgiven, this Court already rejected that motion on its merits 19 as well. (See ECF 41, at 2 (“In any event, the Court has read through the cases cited by 20 plaintiff, and none suggest that there has been an ‘intervening change in controlling law’ 21 or that the court ‘committed clear error.’”).) As Dragasits’s motion to review documents is 22 in fact a repackaged motion for reconsideration, it is again denied. 23 Second, Dragasits “prays that the Court will grant the motion to use Federal R[ule 24 of Civil Procedure] 54(b)” to enter a partial final judgment on already dismissed claims. 25 (ECF 47, at 3.) The Court may “direct the entry of a final judgment” after dismissing less 26 than all the claims in a suit only “if the court expressly determines that there is no just 27 reason to delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). To grant that relief, the Court must consider “such 28 1 || factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal appeals in cases 2 || which should be reviewed only as single units” as well as “equitable factors such as 3 || prejudice and delay.” Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). Dragasits does not 4 address any of these factors, though, and the Court’s own review of the record does not 5 ||suggest that this case should proceed by piecemeal appeals. The Court declines the 6 || invitation to enter partial final judgment. 7 Finally, plaintiff requests “separation of the 8th Amendment violation from the 8 || plaintiff's attempt to hold stated defendants for violations of the 14th Amendment ‘Due 9 ||Process.’” (ECF 47, at 3.) Previously, at Dragasits’s own request, his cases were 10 || consolidated because of the interrelatedness of the claims. (See ECF 9; ECF 10.) The only 11 ||reason Dragasits offers for separating these claims—which were, again, joined at his 12 || urging—is that some have now been dismissed. Yet he provides no authority for severing 13 ||claims merely due to an intervening (partial) dismissal. (See generally ECF 47.) This 14 || motion, too, is denied. 15 In sum, all the requests in Dragasits’s latest motion are DENIED. Nonetheless, this 16 |! Court will offer him some unrequested relief. In its last order, the Court set a deadline of 17 July 31, 2026, for Dragasits to file his “third amended complaint updating only” the name 18 |! of one of the Doe defendants. (See ECF 41, at 1.) That date has passed without a third 19 |! amended complaint. Considering Dragasits’s unrepresented status, the Court sua sponte 20 | extends that amendment deadline to August 31, 2026. 21 |!Dated: August 12, 2026 22 23 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 a oe