Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01806/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01806-1/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

3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS

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

JOHN ROETTGEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PARAMO, ET AL.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION 

TO REINSTATE CASE; AND (2) 

GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility, initially filed this action on July 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On July 21, 2016, this 

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed his 

Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 3.) The Court found a 

number of deficiencies in his pleading but nevertheless, Plaintiff was granted forty-five 

(45) days leave to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 10-11.)

On February 13, 2017, nearly seven months after the Court dismissed this action, 

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Copy of Court Order, Reinstate Case and for 45 days in 

which to file First Amended Complaint.” (ECF No. 5.)

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS

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 that he never received the Court’s July 21, 2016 Order. (See Pl.’s 

Mot. at 1-2.) Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds good cause to grant 

Plaintiff an extension of time in which to comply with its July 21, 2016 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, the Court will not “reinstate” this case at this time. If Plaintiff files an 

amended pleading within forty-five (45) days, the Court will reopen the matter. If 

Plaintiff fails to comply the Court’s Order within this timeframe, the Court will enter a 

final order of dismissal.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate this matter 

but GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 

is granted forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to file a 

First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the 

Court’s July 21, 2016 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).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s docket along 

with a copy of the July 21, 2016 Order. 

Dated: April 5, 2017

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2