Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00667/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00667-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION ISSUED FEBRUARY 

4, 2020

(ECF No. 28)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(ECF No. 25)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Nicholas Estrada is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on May 16, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Before his original 

complaint could be screened, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 20, 2018. (ECF 

No. 7.) On February 28, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and granted 

Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.)

After receiving three extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on 

July 22, 2019. (ECF No. 16.) On September 23, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 

Case 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 5
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

2

17.) The Court’s screening order provided Plaintiff with the pleading and legal standards that 

applied to his claims and granted Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty 

days after service of the order. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff was expressly warned that, if he failed to 

file a third amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, the Court would recommend 

to a District Judge that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure 

to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 16.)

On November 8, 2019, after Plaintiff failed to timely file a third amended complaint or 

otherwise communicate with the Court, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, and 

failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.) The Court granted Plaintiff fourteen (14) days from the 

service of the order to either file a third amended complaint or a written response showing cause 

why this action should not be dismissed. (Id.) 

In response to the November 8, 2019 order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 

30-day extension of time to file a third amended complaint on November 25, 2019. (ECF No. 

22.) 

On November 26, 2019, the Court vacated the November 8, 2019 order to show cause, 

granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, and ordered Plaintiff to file a third amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 23.)

On January 6, 2020, after Plaintiff failed to timely file a third amended complaint or 

otherwise communicate with the Court, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a third amended 

complaint or show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, failure to comply with the Court’s September 23, 2019 and November 26, 2019 orders, and 

failure to prosecute, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 

24.) Plaintiff was again expressly warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would 

result in a recommendation to a District Judge that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for 

failure to state a claim, failure to obey court orders, and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.)

The deadline for Plaintiff to file either a third amended complaint or a written response 

showing cause why the action should not be dismissed expired on January 23, 2020. 

Case 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 5
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

3

On February 4, 2020, after the Court’s docket did not indicate that the Court had received 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint or a written response to the order to show cause, the Court 

issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim, failure to obey the Court’s 

September 23, 2019 and January 6, 2020 orders, and failure to prosecute this action. (ECF No. 

28.)

However, later on February 4, 2020, the Court docketed Plaintiff’s untimely response to 

the January 6, 2020 order to show cause and a notice of change of address, which the Court had 

received in the mail on February 3, 2020. (ECF No. 25.) In his response, Plaintiff states that this 

action should not be dismissed because the landlord at his former address of record had 

disregarded, damaged, or returned numerous pieces of Plaintiff’s mail, Plaintiff never received a 

response to the request for extension of time that he filed on November 5, 2019, and, while he is 

now homeless, he is requesting that the Court grant him a reasonable amount of time to file a 

third amended complaint with the assistance of legal counsel. (Id.)

Having considered Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a third amended 

complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for an extension of time. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). However, the Court notes that Plaintiff was ordered to file a third amended 

complaint on September 23, 2019 and, even though more than four months have passed, Plaintiff 

has still not filed a third amended complaint. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s current 

circumstances, this action cannot be held in abeyance indefinitely. Therefore, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff a thirty (30) day extension of time to file a third amended complaint. The Court will also 

grant Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s September 23, 2019 screening order, which provides a 

summary of Plaintiff’s allegations and the relevant legal and pleading standards, and should allow 

Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. Further requests for an extension of time to file a third 

amended complaint are discouraged, and will not be granted absent substantial good cause.

In light of the extension of time to file a third amended complaint, the findings and 

recommendation issued on February 4, 2020 are vacated.

Additionally, the Court reminds Plaintiff that, now that he has been released from custody, 

Case 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

the prison mailbox rule no longer applies to his filings. Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s 

pleadings are deemed to be filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities 

for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. 

Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to 

civil rights actions). Now that Plaintiff has been released from custody, “[w]hen papers are 

mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper 

v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). In the future, Plaintiff 

should ensure that any motions for extension of time, or other responses to Court deadlines, are 

mailed to the Court so they will be received by the applicable deadline.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 4, 2020, (ECF No. 28), are 

VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint, (ECF 

No. 25), is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff is directed to file a third amended complaint within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order;

4. Along with this order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve Plaintiff with a 

complaint form, and a copy of the Court’s September 23, 2019 screening order, 

(ECF No. 17);

5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation to the District Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to 

obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

6. Plaintiff is advised that any future failures to timely file will result in a 

recommendation to dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. No further 

OSC’s will be issued since Plaintiff has had numerous notices in the past and 

is aware of the consequences for not filing timely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00667-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 5