Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01191/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01191-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 06cv1191

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDAL RUIZ,

CDC# V-00678, Civil No. 06-CV-01191 JM (AJB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 10]

vs.

Cpt ESQUIBEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 22, 2006, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). See Sept. 22, 2006 Order

at 7-8. Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff forty-five days leave to amend his Complaint.

Id. at 8. On October 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his

First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 10]. Plaintiff claims he needs the additional time because

his access to the prison law library is limited due to his confinement in administrative

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

from a pro se prisoner 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

Case 3:06-cv-01191-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2 06cv1191

465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000)

(reversing district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimely where

mere 30-day delay was result of prison-wide lockdown).

Conclusion and Order

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension

of time in which to file a First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 10]. Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be filed with the Court no later than Friday,

December 15, 2006. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must comply in all other respects

with the Court’s September 22, 2006 Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01191-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 2