Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01259/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01259-2/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

19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

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

JORGE RIVERA, CDCR #G‒16129,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL; 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF; 

JOHN & JANE DOES,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 9)

On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Jorge Rivera, while incarcerated at the San Diego County 

Central Jail (“SDCCJ”),1 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 

that the SDCCJ, the San Diego County Sheriff, and several unidentified SDCCJ officials 

interfered with his right to religious worship and denied him access to the courts, his 

medical devices, medical treatment, and clean drinking water. See generally ECF No. 1 

(“Compl.”).

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 Rivera later filed a Notice of Change of Address and is now incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in 

Ione, California. See ECF No. 6.

Case 3:19-cv-01259-JLS-NLS Document 10 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

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

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), conducted an initial screening of his Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint sua 

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

See ECF No. 8. The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days’ leave in which to file an amended 

complaint addressing all the pleading deficiencies the Court identified. Id. at 11‒12; 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 March 2, 2020, approximately one week before his amended complaint was due,

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion requesting an extension of time to file his amended 

complaint. See ECF No. 9 (“Mot.”).

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may 

grant an extension of time for “good cause” where the moving party requests the extension 

before the applicable deadline expires. Id. Rule 6(b) must be “‘liberally construed to 

effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian v. 

Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 “[The 

Federal Rules] should be construed, administered, and employed . . . to secure the just, 

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”); accord Turner 

v. Tierney, 678 F. App’x 580, 581 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, “‘[s]trict 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).

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01259-JLS-NLS Document 10 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

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

Plaintiff claims he requires an “extensive extension” of time because he is 

“attempting to put together discovery motions,” including a “summons to produce 

documents and interrogatories” in addition to his amended complaint. See Mot. at 1. He 

also asks that the Court provide him with a copy of his original Complaint. Id.

Plaintiff’s request is timely, and he is still incarcerated and proceeding without 

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

that the 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”). Construing his

request in the light most favorable to him, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an

extension of time within which to amend his complaint. See Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136. 

Plaintiff is reminded, however, that his amended complaint does not require any case 

citation or legal analysis. Instead, it must simply allege facts already known to him that 

plausibly entitle him to relief in light of the legal precedent already identified by the Court 

in its January 28, 2020 Order. See Rosenblum v. Ellis, No. 1:05-CV-01473-LJO-GSA-PC, 

2010 WL 2471148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2010) (advising pro se prisoner that the “lack 

of access to the law library is not sufficient grounds for a motion for extension of time in 

which to file an amended complaint”); id. (“The amended complaint does not require legal 

analysis. Plaintiff must simply allege the facts that entitle him to relief, and state the legal 

cause of action for each claim.”).

Further, while Rivera does need to identify the persons he seeks to sue by name in a 

§ 1983 suit, see ECF No. 8 at 10‒12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must 

name all the parties[.]”), discovery is otherwise premature because he must first file an 

amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678-79 (2009) (noting that court “does not unlock the doors of discovery” if the 

plaintiff fails to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face” and is “armed with 

nothing more than conclusions”); see also Stine v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:18-CV-0684 

KJN P, 2018 WL 2771332, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2018) (“Once plaintiff has an operative 

complaint on file, and defendants have filed an answer, the court will issue a discovery and 

Case 3:19-cv-01259-JLS-NLS Document 10 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

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

scheduling order.”); Bettencourt v. Parker, No. 1:16-CV-00150-DAD-BAM PC, 2016 WL 

4137242, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4) (denying prisoner’s requests to begin discovery and set 

matter for trial as premature in light of court’s duty to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4796313 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2016); Johnson v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 14-2519-

PHXDGCMEA, 2015 WL 390837, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2015) (“If Plaintiff files a first 

amended complaint, the Court will conduct statutory screening of the first amended 

complaint, order service of the first amended complaint, if appropriate, and issue a 

scheduling order setting discovery deadlines after Defendants have answered the 

complaint.”).

Finally, while the Court is under no obligation to provide Plaintiff with free 

photocopies of his own pleadings, see Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(per curiam) (noting prisoners have no constitutional right to free photocopies), overruled 

on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350–55 (1996), it will direct the Clerk 

of the Court to provide him with a copy of his original Complaint (ECF No. 1), so that he 

may review its deficiencies in conjunction with the Court’s January 28, 2020 screening 

Order (ECF No. 8). See Martines v. Klein, No. 12-CV-1868-DMS-DHB, 2013 WL 

4026758, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013) (directing Clerk to provide pro se prisoner with a 

copy of his deficient complaint “for his use in amending”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension 

of Time to File His Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and DIRECTS the Clerk of the 

Court to provide him with a copy of his original Complaint (ECF No. 1).

Plaintiff SHALL FILE his amended complaint on or before April 13, 2020. The 

amended complaint must cure all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s 

January 28, 2020 Order and must be complete by itself without reference to his original 

pleading. Any Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint will be considered waived.

Case 3:19-cv-01259-JLS-NLS Document 10 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19-CV-1259 JLS (NLS)

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

Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint on or before April 13, 2020, the 

Court SHALL ENTER a final Order dismissing the case based both on his failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

1915A(b) and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a Court Order requiring 

amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does 

not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 

dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01259-JLS-NLS Document 10 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5