Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02976/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02976-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN HAGAN,

CDCR#AM-6145

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT MICHAEL BLUMAN; 

CHARLES CHILDERS; SCOTTY 

ELECTRIC CO.; KATHY BURGESS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 5]

I. Procedural History

On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court conducted the required sua sponte screening and

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days leave from February 

28, 2017 to file an amended complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading 

identified by the Court. (Id.) However, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint

within that time frame. Instead, on June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion and Request 

for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” which the Court construes as a motion for 

extension of time to file an amended pleading. 

Case 3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Motion for Extension of Time

In Plaintiff’s latest Motion, he claims that he has not been allowed access to the 

prison law library. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Based on these allegations, the Court will provide 

Plaintiff with an additional sixty (60) days in which to file a First Amended Complaint. 

“‘Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro 

se ... plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge 

v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 

468 (9th Cir. 1967).

III. Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File First 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty (60) days leave from 

the date this Order is signed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all 

the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s February 28, 2017 Order. If Plaintiff 

fails to file an amended pleading within this time frame, the Court will issue a final Order 

of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2017

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2