Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00141/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00141-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LEON HOPTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY HUMAN HEALTH 

SYSTEM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00141-NONE-SKO

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 10)

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s “Amended Complaint (Partial)”1and “Request for 

Exten[s]ion of Time Constraints” filed on March 23, 2020, (Doc. 10), requesting additional time in 

which to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s screening order, (Doc. 9). 

Plaintiff filed this case on January 28, 2020, alleging various unrelated claims against 

unrelated defendants. (See Doc. 1.) On March 3, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 9.) The Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable 

claim but granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within 21 days of the date of 

service of the screening order. (Id. at 15.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that he must include 

only related claims and defendants in any amended complaint and must file the other claims in 

 

1 Although the heading of Plaintiff’s filing includes the words “Amended Complaint (Partial),” (see Doc. 10 at 1), the 

filing is almost entirely devoted to Plaintiff’s request for an extension. The only part of the filing that discusses the 

allegations relevant to an amended complaint is on pages 1–2, where Plaintiff lists additional defendants he intends to 

name in the amended complaint. (See id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff is therefore advised that his March 23, 2020 filing, (Doc. 

10), is construed solely as a request for an extension of time and the contents of the filing will not be considered 

as part of any amended complaint. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the document must be “complete 

in itself without reference to” the original complaint or the March 23, 2020 filing. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 220; Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Case 1:20-cv-00141-DAD-SKO Document 11 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 2
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

separate cases, if desired. (See id.) 

In his request for an extension of time, Plaintiff states he will be unable to file an amended 

complaint by the deadline set forth in the Court’s screening order because he needs additional time 

to collect documentation regarding the allegations in the complaint. (Doc. 10 at 1, 3–4.) Plaintiff 

also advises the Court that his amended complaint in this case will include only claims and 

defendants related to his child custody proceedings. (Id. at 2.) 

For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in 

which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff SHALL file either an amended complaint or a 

notice of voluntary dismissal by no later than May 8, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00141-DAD-SKO Document 11 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2