Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01019/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01019-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

5 

- -

10 

15 

20 

25 

- \) 

2 \ 3 U.:> \ 3 rt' 9: 28 

. ~ ,. \~T C::Ur,1 3 ,:... ' , r ;.\ ,"'c- . nOhk\,'\ T ~ i '"' t .' ... 

4 

OEPUT y 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 

12 

RANDELL ALBERT HOPKINS, 

CDCR #V-97737, 

13 

14 

vs. 

DANIEL PARAMO, et aI., 

16 

17 

18 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13cvl019 WQH (MDD) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO AMEND 

[ECF Doc. No. 15] 

19 Randell Albert Hopkins ("Plaintiff'), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

21 action, which he initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, 

22 Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed 

23 a Motion to proceed informa pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF Doc. No. 

24 4]. 

On June 6, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his 

26 Complaint failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See June 

27 6,2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 10]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave to amend. Id. at 7; see 

28 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc)("[A] district court should 

1:\Everyonc\_ EFI LE-PROSE\WQH\I Jcv IOI 9-ex! -limc-F AC, \\ pd -1­ 13cvl019 WQH (MOD) 

Case 3:13-cv-01019-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 3
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

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). 

Since then, Plaintiff has attempted to file various documents, most of which include 

reference to "1819 Constructive Notice" in their captions, and most ofwhich have been rej ected 

for failing to comply with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as a host of the 

Court's own Local Rules. See, e.g., ECF Doc. Nos. 5, 12, 13; Kingv. Atryeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 

(9th Cir. 1987) (noting that although the Court must construe the pleadings liberally, "[P]ro se 

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."). Every time 

Plaintiff attempted to submit these documents, the Court provided him with directions to re-open 

his case by first complying with its June 6, 2013 Order requiring amendment. 

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff again submitted a document entitled "Request to Amend 

Records (per) 1819 Constructive Notice to Address with an Expedited Reply to My Issues of 

Grave Concerns," this time including what appear to be exhibits in support of his intended 

claims, and a request for an "extension oftime to meet Order," which the Court now construes 

as a Motion for Extension ofTime in which to submit his Amended Complaint [ECF Doc. No. 

ISV 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This is Plaintiff's first request for an extension of time, he remains incarcerated, and is 

still proceeding without counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep 't, 901 F .2d 696, 699 (9th 

1 The Court cautions Plaintiff that while it has, and will continue to construe his pleadings with 

liberality in light ofhis pro se status, most ofhis attempted submissions make little sense, are comprised 

of a serious of questions and statements which appear completely unrelated to the issues raised in his 

original pleading, and none of which come anywhere close to addressing the deficiencies ofpleading 

identified by the Court in its June 6, 2013 Order. Therefore, Plaintiff is reminded that his original 

Complaint was dismissed because his allegations appeared to "necessarily imply the invalidity" ofhis 

conviction or sentence under Heckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and because he failed 

to show a liberty or property interest in prison employment sufficient to invoke the Due Process Clause. 

See June 6, 2013 Order at 4-6. His Amended Complaint must include "plausible ... factual content" 

which fixes these pleading problems; otherwise it too will be dismissed for failing to state a claim per 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and any further attempts to amend may be refused as futile. See 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."') (citation omitted); Vasquez v. 

Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1258 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing "[fJutility of amendment" as a 

proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend)). 

l:lEvel')1>nel_EflLE-PROSElWQH\ nov10 19 ..xt-lime-FACwpd -2- l3ev10 19 WQH (MDD) 

Case 3:13-cv-01019-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 08/13/13 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 

Cir. 1990) (court has a "duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on 

the merits oftheir claim due to ... technical procedural requirements."). Thus, without more, the 

Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff additional time in which to comply with the Court's 

June 6, 2013 Order. '''Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon' where restraints 

resulting from a pro se ... plaintiffs 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 Bennettv. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(reversing district court's dismissal ofprisoner's amended pro se complaint as untimely where 

mere 30-day delay was result ofprison-wide lockdown). 

III. 	 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1) Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend [ECF Doc. No. 15] is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be received by 

the Court no later than Monday, September 16, 2013. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that his 

Amended Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the 

Court's June 6, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 10], and must be complete in itselfwithoutreference 

to his original Complaint. See S.D. CAL.CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. RichardFeiner 

& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[A]n amended pleading supersedes the 

original."); King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citation omitted) ("All causes ofaction alleged in an original 

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived."). 

2) IfPlaintiff elects not to file an Amended Complaint by September 16, 2013, this 

case shall remain dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b) for all the reasons set forth in the Court's June 6, 2013 Order, and without any 

further Order by the Court. 

,,/ 

DATED: ---=-f/_//~h-,-W-,--/~,5__ 

HON. WILLIAM . HAYES 

United States Dis ict Judge 

f:\Evclyonel_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cvIOI9-ext-time-FAC.wpd -3-	 13cvlOl9 WQH (MOD) 

Case 3:13-cv-01019-WQH-MDD Document 16 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 3