Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01868/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01868-0/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

ENRIQUE MARTINES,

CDCR #V-44257,

Civil No. 12cv1868 DMS (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO AMEND

(ECF Doc. No. 9)

vs.

J.R. KLEIN, et al.,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Enrique Martines (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil action filed pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he initiated this case, 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 Doc. No. 2).

On October 4, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 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

Oct. 4, 2012 Order (ECF Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave, however, to amend

his pleading. Id. at 5; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\12cv1868-ext-time-SAC.wpd -1- 12cv1868 DMS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01868-DMS-DHB Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 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).)

After requesting and receiving an extension of time (ECF Doc. No. 6), Plaintiff submitted

his First Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 7); but it too was dismissed for failing to state a

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) on July 1, 2013 (ECF Doc. No. 9). 

Plaintiff was again granted forty-five days leave to amend, but on July 24, 2013, he filed another

Motion requesting an additional extension of time (ECF Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff requests a

second extension based on his transfer from Centinela State Prison to RJD on July 10, 2013, and

because his legal property was either lost or delayed during the transfer. See Pl.’s Mot. ¶¶ 1-2.

Plaintiff claims he is a “layman in the field of law,” has another inmate assisting him at RJD, and

requests that the Clerk of Court “furnish [him] with a complete copy of all documents” already

filed in this case. Id. ¶¶ 5-7.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

While this is his second motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff 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.”). Thus, the Court finds good

cause to grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to amend. “‘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). And 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), the Court shall direct the Clerk to

provide Plaintiff with a copy of his First Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 7), the July 1, 2013

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\12cv1868-ext-time-SAC.wpd -2- 12cv1868 DMS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01868-DMS-DHB Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 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

Order which outlines the deficiencies of that pleading (ECF Doc. No. 8), and shall further

provide Plaintiff with a blank Court-approved form 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint for

Plaintiff’s use in amending.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be received by the Court no later

than Monday, September 16, 2013. Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned that his Second Amended

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

Oct. 4, 2012 and July 1, 2013 Orders (ECF Doc. Nos. 3, 8), and must be complete in itself

without reference to his previous pleadings. See S.D.CAL.CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc.

v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). All claims not re-alleged

against any defendant not named will be waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.3d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987).

2) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiff with

a copy of his previously dismissed First Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 7), a copy of the

Court’s July 1, 2013 Order (ECF Doc. No. 8), as well a blank Court-approved 42 U.S.C. § 1983

form civil rights complaint for Plaintiff’s convenience. Plaintiff must identify his pleading as

his “Second Amended Complaint” and include Civil Case No. 12cv1868 DMS (DHB) in its

caption. Should Plaintiff elect not to file a Second Amended Complaint by September 16, 2013,

however, 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 of the Court.

DATED: August 6, 2013

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\12cv1868-ext-time-SAC.wpd -3- 12cv1868 DMS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01868-DMS-DHB Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 3 of 3