Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00116/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00116-3/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0116-Final Denial Amend.wpd -1- 09cv0116

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

CDCR #P-73828,

Civil No. 09cv0116 L (BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO AMEND FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO CLOSE THE FILE

[Doc. No. 40]

vs.

R.J. DONOVAN, Appeals Coordinator, 

et al.

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Christopher Lee Jenkins (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at California

Institution for Men in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 12, 2009 in the Eastern District of California. O n

January 15, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan found the case lacked

proper venue and transferred the matter to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a) [Doc. No. 5].

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00116-L-BLM Document 41 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 4
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0116-Final Denial Amend.wpd -2- 09cv0116

On January 27, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) as insufficient, but granted him time to provide a properly supported IFP

application [Doc. No. 8]. Plaintiff then requested, and was granted, an extension of time in

which to do so [Doc. Nos. 9, 10]. 

On May 28, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but dismissed his Complaint

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

28, 2009 Order [Doc. No. 13]. In its Order, the Court identified Plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies

and provided him leave to amend. Id. at 4-7.

Plaintiff thereafter requested, and was granted, four separate extensions of time in which

to file a First Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 14-19, 23-24.] On November 25, 2009, Plaintiff

filed his First Amended Complaint, adding new claims and 37 additional Defendants [Doc. No.

26]. However, on December 14, 2009, the Court again found Plaintiff failed to state a claim and

dismissed his First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b)(1)

[Doc. No. 27]. While Plaintiff was once again granted leave to amend, he was cautioned any

additional requests for extensions of time would “only be granted for good cause shown.” See

Dec. 14, 2009 Order at 8.

Plaintiff thereafter filed, and was granted, two additional requests for extension of time

in which to file a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 28-29, 31-32]. And, on May 7, 2010,

Plaintiff filed what is now his seventh request for an extension of time in which to amend [Doc.

No. 33]. This request was again granted by the Court on May 19, 2010 [Doc. No. 34]. 

However, Plaintiff was told that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing

of “extraordinary circumstances.” See May 19, 2010 Order at 3. The Court provided Plaintiff

with an additional eleven weeks to file his Second Amended Complaint. Id. Plaintiff was told

that he must file this Second Amended Complaint no later than Monday, August 2, 2010. Id. at

4.

Plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file his Second Amended Complaint by August

2, 2010, the Court would “enter a final Order of Dismissal without prejudice for failing to state

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b).” Id. On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff

Case 3:09-cv-00116-L-BLM Document 41 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 4
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0116-Final Denial Amend.wpd -3- 09cv0116

filed a “Motion for Order to Receive Legal Documents and Access to the Courts” [Doc. No. 37].

In this Motion, Plaintiff claimed that he needed the Court to send him materials from the Court’s

docket because prison officials had confiscated his legal materials.

The Court provided Plaintiff with a copy of his First Amended Complaint and the Court’s

December 14, 2009 Order dismissing his First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim.

See July 8, 2010 Order at 3. Plaintiff was admonished that he was still obligated to file his

Second Amended Complaint by August 2, 2010. Id. Instead of filing a Second Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff has now filed his ninth “Motion for Extension of Time to File First

Amended Complaint” [Doc. No. 40].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As noted above, this is Plaintiff’s ninth request for an extension of time. In his Motion

he claims he discovered that prison officials threw away all of his legal materials when he

returned to the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility on May 25, 2010. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2.

This claim was the basis for his last Motion in which he asked the Court to send him copies of

documents filed in the Court’s record. The Court granted this request in early July and sent

Plaintiff a copy of his First Amended Complaint and the Court’s December 14, 2009 Order

outlining the deficiencies of pleading found in the First Amended Complaint. See July 8, 2010

Order at 3. These documents were more than sufficient for the Plaintiff to refer to in submitting

a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has now had nearly eight months to draft a Second

Amended Complaint to comply with the Court’s December 14, 2009 Order. Plaintiff was

informed that only in extraordinary circumstances would the Court grant another extension of

time. He has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances that would prevent him from

complying with all of the Court’s previous Orders. Cf. Efau v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041

(9th Cir. 2007) (noting that while a court’s discretion in extending time [under FED.R.CIV.P.

4(m)] is broad, a plaintiff’s protracted and repeated requests for extension of time must end

somewhere, for “no court has ruled that the discretion is limitless.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Second Amended

Complaint is DENIED.

Case 3:09-cv-00116-L-BLM Document 41 Filed 08/10/10 Page 3 of 4
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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\09cv0116-Final Denial Amend.wpd -4- 09cv0116

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend First Amended Complaint is

DENIED [Doc. No. 40]. Pursuant to the Court’s May 19, 2010 and July 8, 2010 Orders, the

entire action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) and for failing to comply with the Court’s Orders.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 10, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00116-L-BLM Document 41 Filed 08/10/10 Page 4 of 4