Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02750/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02750-1/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

JACOB ADAM CASTRO,

CDCR #K-48103,

Civil

No. 

13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

vs.

LIEUTENANT G.J. JANDA; BENTLY;

DR. GREY; VALENCIA; S.

HERNANDEZ; L. HERNANDEZ;

SUDU; CONES; LIEUTENANT DAVIS,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, currently housed in Corcoran State Prison located in Corcoran,

California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis(“IFP”). On January

10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed

his Complaint for failing to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted leave to

file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in

the Court’s Order. (Id. at 7-8.) The time to file an Amended Complaint has since passed

but Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File a First Amended Complaint.” 

(ECF No. 9.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and permitted him an additionalsixty

(60) days to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.)

1 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 13 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 2
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 has now filed a second “Motion for Extension of Time to Amend a Civil

Action.” (ECF No. 12.) In this motion, Plaintiff claims that the prison has been on

“lock-down” and he has not had access to his legal materials. 

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension of time in which to

comply with its January 10, 2014 Order. “‘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). However, no further extensions of time

will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court herebyGRANTSPlaintiff’sMotion for Extension of Time

to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days

leave from the date this Order is electronically filed in which to file a First Amended

Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s January 10,

2014 Order. Plaintiff is once again cautioned that should he elect to amend, his

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, that it will supersede his original

Complaint, and that any claim not re-alleged against any Defendant previously named

will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

DATED: June 30, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

2 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 13 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 2