Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01141/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01141-2/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

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

TYRONE WALLACE,

CDCR #P-48941,

Civil No. 15cv1141 WQH (RBB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

vs.

Dr. DO; Dr. CHAU; Dr. ABARTO,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Tyrone Wallace (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this case

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Procedural History

On July 22, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint sua

sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. See July 22, 2015 Order (ECF No. 3). The Court

provided Plaintiff with notice of his Complaint’s pleading deficiencies and granted him

45 days leave in which to amend. Id. at 5-10.

On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF

-1- 15cv1141

Case 3:15-cv-01141-WQH-AGS Document 13 Filed 05/19/16 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

No. 6). On January 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for extension of time

as moot, conducted its mandatory screening of Plaintiff’s FAC, and dismissed it for

failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). See

ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was granted another 45 days in which to file a Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”). Id. at 8.

On March 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to file

his SAC. (ECF No. 9). On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time

was granted and Plaintiff was given another 45 days in which to file his SAC. (ECF No.

10). On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Extension of Time in which to

file his SAC. (ECF No. 12). 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff requests a status report on his Motion for Extension of Time filed on

March 8, 2016. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff claims that while the Court’s docket shows a copy

of its March 18, 2016 Order was served on him via U.S. Mail, he did not receive it. See

ECF No. 9 at 2. Plaintiff requests additional time in which to file his SAC. Id. at 1. 

Plaintiff remains incarcerated, his request is timely, and is he 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.”). 

Therefore, 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 prisonwide lockdown).

/ / /

-2- 15cv1141

Case 3:15-cv-01141-WQH-AGS Document 13 Filed 05/19/16 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

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time

(ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must

be received by the Court no later than Tuesday, July 5, 2016. Plaintiff is again cautioned

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

identified in the Court’s July 22, 2015, and January 13, 2016 Orders (ECF Nos. 3, 7), and

must be complete in itself without reference to either of 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) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v.

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with

leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered

waived if not repled.”).

Should Plaintiff fail to file a Second Amended Complaint within the time provided,

the Court will enter a final Order of dismissal of this civil action for failure to state a

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to

prosecute in compliance with a Court Order requiring amendment. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

permitted if plaintiff fails to respond to a court’s order requiring amendment of

complaint); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not

take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the

dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”); Edwards v. Marin Park,

356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond

to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court

that it will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

-3- 15cv1141

Case 3:15-cv-01141-WQH-AGS Document 13 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3