Barnard v. The United States Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.)
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court granted a pro se plaintiff's request for a 90-day extension to file an amended complaint following a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court ordered that the plaintiff must file a complete amended complaint by August 1, 2020, or the action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's request for a 90-day extension of time to file an amended complaint.“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a ninety-day extension. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 1, 2020.” | agree with court The court found good cause based on the plaintiff's medical condition. While the order does not detail the specific medical evidence, granting an extension for medical reasons is a standard exercise of discretion in pro se litigation to ensure access to the courts. The deadline calculation (April 30 request + 90 days) aligns with the stated August 1 date. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural ruling granting an extension. It correctly cites Ninth Circuit authority regarding the superseding nature of amended complaints and the consequences of failing to amend. The reasoning is sufficient for the specific relief granted.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID BARNARD, Case No.: 20-cv-493-GPC(MDD)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED 13 THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), 14 DHS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE 15 (DHS-MGMT), FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES (FPS) P. 16 YOUNG (ID NO. 1074), and DOES 1 17 through 5, all in their individual capacity, inclusive; in the same incident; THE 18 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND 19 BORDER PROTETION, and DOES 6 through 10, all in their individual capacity, 20 inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 23 On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff David Barnard, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 24 complaint against Defendant P. Young (ID No. 1074), a Protective Security Officer 25 (“PSO”), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Management Directorate, 26 General Services Administration, (“GSA”), Federal Protective Services and U.S. 27 Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) pursuant to 28 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his civil rights based on his unlawful detention, unlawful 1 || seizure of his vehicle and an unlawful arrest during a stop at the San Ysidro Port of Entry 2 March 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. at 3.) On April 6, 2020, the Court granted 3 || Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but sua sponte dismissed the Complaint 4 || for failure to state a claim and granted him leave to file an amended complaint on or 5 || before May 1, 2010. (Dkt. No. 3.) On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a timely request for 6 extension of time to file an amended complaint due to his medical condition. Good cause 7 || appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for a ninety-day extension. Plaintiff 8 ||shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 1, 2020. 9 Plaintiff's amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to his 10 || original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended 11 ||Complaint will be considered waived. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & 12 ||Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the 13 || original.’). 14 Moreover, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time provided, 15 Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on Plaintiff's 16 || failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $§ 17 || 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court 18 || order requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If 19 plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 20 || may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: May 4, 2020 (3 salto OA ) 23 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28