Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01855/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01855-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMINA SALVADOR,

Detainee #A200948077,

Case No. 12cv1855 LAB (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO AMEND

[ECF No. 7]

vs.

ALVARADO PARKWAY HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Amina Salvador (“Plaintiff”), currently detained at the San Diego Detention Center

(“SDDC”) in San Diego, California, as a result of ongoing immigration and deportation

proceedings, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, which she initiated pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. At the time she filed her Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee

mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, she filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2], as well as Motion to Appoint Counsel

[ECF No. 3].

On August 10, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but denied her Motion to

Appoint Counsel and dismissed her Complaint as frivolous and/or for failing to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2). See Aug. 10, 2012 Order [ECF No. 5]. To the extent the

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1855-ext-time-FAC.wpd -1- 12cv1855 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-01855-LAB-JMA Document 8 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Court could not determine “the true nature of [Plaintiff’s] allegations or whether she [wa]s

attempting to state a claim based on an alleged violation of any federal law,” she was, in an

abundance of caution and in light of her pro se status, granted 45 days leave to amend. Id. at 5;

see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted).

On September 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an extension of time in which

to file her Amended Complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff claims she has limited

access to the law library at the SDDC, and that she hopes to further research the cases cited in

support of the Court’s August 10, 2012 dismissal Order so that she may be able to include an

“arguable basis in law” and allege further facts in support of her claims. (Id. at 1.) Thus,

Plaintiff asks for additional time in which to “sit in with a lawyer who has agreed to give [her]

some advice,” access the library, and conduct the research necessary to amend her pleading. (Id.

at 1-2.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time, and she is still proceeding without

counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (court has

a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their

claim due to ... technical procedural requirements.”). Thus, the Court finds good cause to grant

Plaintiff’s request. “‘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); 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).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1855-ext-time-FAC.wpd -2- 12cv1855 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-01855-LAB-JMA Document 8 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 3
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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should she elect to file one, must be received by the Court no

later than Monday, November 19, 2012. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that her Amended

Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the Court’s

August 10, 2012 Order [ECF No. 5], and must be complete in itself without reference to her

original Complaint. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner &

Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the

original.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted) (“All causes of

action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are

waived.”). 

2) If Plaintiff elects not to file an Amended Complaint by November 19, 2012, this

case shall remain dismissed as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) without any further Order by the Court.

DATED: October 8, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv1855-ext-time-FAC.wpd -3- 12cv1855 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:12-cv-01855-LAB-JMA Document 8 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 3