Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01603/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01603-1/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

BENJAMIN A. WALSH,

CDCR #K-35564,

Case No. 12cv1603 JLS (MDD)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO AMEND

[ECF No. 8]

vs.

J. CELAYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Benjamin A. Walsh (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”) in San Diego, 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 copies of

his inmate trust account statements, which the Court construed to be a request to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 3].

On July 30, 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

July 30, 2012 Order [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave, however, to amend

his pleading. Id. at 6-7; 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

-1- 12cv1603 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01603-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 09/20/12 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

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”

(citations omitted)).

On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to file

his Amended Complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. [ECF No. 8]. While Plaintiff offers no explanation

as to why he has been unable to timely comply with its July 30, 2012 Order, the Court will

presume that limitations placed on him due to his continued confinement at RJDCF have

played a role.

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time, his request is timely, 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 Plaintiff’s 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.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). 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that no further extensions of time will be granted to

him without explanation or support. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)

(noting that although the Court must construe his pleadings liberally, a pro se litigant “must

follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

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

[ECF No. 8]. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be received

by the Court no later than Monday, November 12, 2012. Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned

-2- 12cv1603 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01603-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 09/20/12 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

that his Amended Complaint must address the deficiencies of pleading previously identified

in the Court’s July 30, 2012 Order [ECF No. 6], 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).

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

Amended Complaint by November 12, 2012, 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 by the

Court.

DATED: September 20, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

-3- 12cv1603 JLS (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01603-JLS-MDD Document 9 Filed 09/20/12 Page 3 of 3