Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02549/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02549-0/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

DAVID B. TURNER, Jr.,

Booking #13719099, Case No. 13cv2549 JLS (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO AMEND

[Doc. No. 8]

vs.

SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

David B. Turner, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Vista Detention

Facility in Vista, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, which he

initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did

not prepay the $400 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc.

No. 3). 

On April 29, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed

his Complaint failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) 

See April 29, 2014 Order (ECF Doc. No. 4) at 8. The Court further granted Plaintiff 45

-1- 13cv2549 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02549-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 08/21/14 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

days in which to file an Amended Complaint that addressed the deficiencies of pleading

identified by the Court. Id.; 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 June 5, 2014, Plaintiff submitted his first request for an extension of time in

which to file his Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 5 at 1. Plaintiff requested additional

time in which to “properly amend” because he is “incapacitated” by his incarceration. 

Id.

On June 20, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request, and gave him until July 28,

2014 to file his Amended Complaint. See June 20, 2014 Order (Doc. No. 6).

On July 22, 2014, just as his time was about to elapse, Plaintiff submitted yet

another request for extension of time (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff continues to claim he is

“incapacitated” as a result of his incarceration, and that he is waiting to receive San Diego

Police Department reports he needs to amend his Complaint. (ECF Doc. No. 8). 

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

As noted above, this is Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time, but he

is still incarcerated and 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.”). “‘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 prisonwide lockdown). Thus, while almost four months have lapsed since Plaintiff’s was

originally apprised of the deficiencies in his original Complaint on April 29, 2014, the

-2- 13cv2549 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02549-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 08/21/14 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

Court finds good cause to grant him one final, but generous extension of time in which

to amend. Cf. Efau v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that while

a court’s discretion in extending time [under FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m)] is broad, a plaintiff’s

protracted and repeated requests for extension of time must end somewhere, for “no court

has ruled that the discretion is limitless.”); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting district court’s inherent authority

to control its docket and promote efficient use of judicial resources).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s Second Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend (ECF Doc.

No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must

be received by the Court no later than Monday, October 6, 2014. Plaintiff is once again

cautioned that his Amended Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading

previously identified in the Court’s April 29, 2014 Order (ECF Doc. No. 4), and must be

complete in itself without reference to his 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 October 6, 2014, this

civil action shall remain DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) for all the reasons set forth in the Court’s April 29, 2014

Order.

DATED: August 21, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

-3- 13cv2549 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02549-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 08/21/14 Page 3 of 3