Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01384/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01384-1/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 

{ ... 

FILED 

SEP 2, 2011 

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF LIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARREN J. NORMAN, 

CDCR #V -69696, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

R. JONES, Correctional Officer; 

L. GARRETT, Correctional Officer, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. ll-CV-1384 BEN (WMc) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

[ECF No.4] 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Darren 1. Norman ("Plaintiff'), currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison ("CAL") 

in Calipatria, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 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 No.2]. 

On August 19, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs IFP Motion, but dismissed his 

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

Aug. 19,2011 Order [ECF No.3]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave, however, to amend his 

pleading. Id. at 6; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F 3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

/ / / 

-1- llcv1384 BEN (WMc) 

Case 3:11-cv-01384-BEN-WMC Document 5 Filed 09/29/11 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 

("[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 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to file 

his Amended Complaint. See Pl.'s Mot. [ECF No.4]. Plaintiff claims the CAL facility where 

he is incarcerated "does not have a law library," thus, he requests additional time in which to 

request access to another facility's library and conduct the research necessary to amend his 

pleading. (ld. at 1-2.) 

II. 	 STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This is Plaintiff s first request for an extension oftime, and he 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 

Plaintiffs 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.2d465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennettv. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(reversing district court's dismissal ofprisoner's amended pro se complaint as untimely where 

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

III. 	 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Accordingly, the Court hereby: 

1) GRANTS Plaintiff s Motion to Extend Time to file an Amended Complaint [ECF 

No.4]. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be received by 

the Court no later than Monday, October 31,2011. Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned that his 

First Amended Complaint must address the deficiencies ofpleading previously identified in the 

Court's August 19,2011 Order [ECF No.3], and must be complete in itself without reference 

to his original Complaint. See S.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard 

Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). 

-2-	 IIcv1384 BEN (WMc) 

III 

Case 3:11-cv-01384-BEN-WMC Document 5 Filed 09/29/11 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 

2) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff elect not to file a First 

Amended Complaint by October 31, 2011, this case shall remain dismissed for failure to state 

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) without further order ofthe Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September~OII 

-3- llcv\384 BEN (WMc) 

Case 3:11-cv-01384-BEN-WMC Document 5 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 3