Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01755/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01755-2/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\6 2 2008\07cv1755-ext-time-FAC_6 2 2008.wpd -1- 07cv1755

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON JACKSON,

CDCR #K-61614,

Civil No. 07-1755 JM (NLS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION/REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 6]

vs.

O. GUTIERREZ, et al., 

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Byron Jackson (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at North Kern State

Prison (“NKSP”) in Delano, California and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 6, 2007, while he was incarcerated at

Corcoran State Prison (“COR”). Plaintiff’s claims, however, arose at Centinela State

Prison. 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) [Doc. No. 4]. 

On January 15, 2008, this Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but dismissed his

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Jan. 15, 2008 Order

[Doc. No. 5]. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a due

Case 3:07-cv-01755-JM-NLS Document 8 Filed 06/02/08 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

1

 While Plaintiff’s Motion was not received by the Clerk until after the 60 days in which

he was granted leave to amend had elapsed, his Motion is timely under Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 270 (1988) because the “Declaration of Service by Mail” attached to his Motion

indicates he delivered it to the “proper institutional officials [at NKSP] for deposit in the U.S.

Mail” on March 13, 2008. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Houston and its progeny provide that notices of

appeal, and other documents submitted by pro se prisoners, are deemed “filed” on the date the

prisoner “deliver[s] [them] to prison authorities for forwarding to the [d]istrict [c]ourt.” Id.; see

also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995).

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\6 2 2008\07cv1755-ext-time-FAC_6 2 2008.wpd -2- 07cv1755

process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he failed to allege the “atypical and

significant hardship” required to invoke a protected liberty interest. Id. at 4-5 (citing

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). The Court also found Plaintiff failed to

allege an equal protection violation because he failed to “demonstrate that he is a member

of a protected class,” and show the “invidious discriminatory intent” required to violate

the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 5-6 (citing City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living

Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan

Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977)). Plaintiff was granted 60 days

leave, however, to amend his pleading. Id. at 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 pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading

could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted).) 

On March 26, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a Motion/ Request for an extension of time

to file his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff requests an additional 30 days leave in which

to amend due to his transfer from COR to NKSP. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1 & Notice of Change

of Address [Doc. No. 7].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time, he is proceeding without

counsel and his request is timely.1

 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 prisoner plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-01755-JM-NLS Document 8 Filed 06/02/08 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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\6 2 2008\07cv1755-ext-time-FAC_6 2 2008.wpd -3- 07cv1755

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). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for Extension

of Time to Amend [Doc. No. 6]. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be filed with the

Court no later than Monday, June 30, 2008. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must

address the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the Court’s January 15, 2008

Order [Doc. No. 5]. If Plaintiff chooses not to file a Amended Complaint within that

time, this action shall remain dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and § 1915A(b) and without further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01755-JM-NLS Document 8 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 3