Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01274-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROGER GIFFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HORNBROOK COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file his amended complaint after the 

court dismissed his original complaint on September 22, 2015, for failure to comply with Federal 

Rule 8(a). 

Plaintiff’s initial motion for a ninety-day extension of time was filed on October 19, 2015. 

ECF No. 4. On October 23, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion in part and ordered him to 

file an amended complaint within thirty days of the service of the order. ECF No. 5. The court 

explained to plaintiff that the drafting of an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule 

8(a) simply should not take ninety days, regardless of his circumstances. Id. Nevertheless, on 

November 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time again seeking a 

ninety-day extension from his original deadline. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s motion again points out 

that he is of limited income and lives in a rural area without a law library. Id. In addition, 

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 12/03/15 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

plaintiff states that he is a very slow typer. Id. In light of the fact that no defendant has yet been 

served in this action and therefore no party will be prejudiced by a second extension, he argues 

that he has shown good cause. Id. 

Although the court does not find that plaintiff has necessarily shown good cause for a 

second sixty-day extension of time, it will grant said extension in light of the Ninth Circuit’s 

extremely liberal policy favoring leave to amend in the pro se context. See United States v. 

Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). However, the court warns plaintiff that no further 

extensions of time will be granted. With the inclusion of plaintiff’s second extension, he will 

have a full 120 days to amend his complaint, more than enough time to craft a short and plain 

statement that complies with Federal Rule 8(a). 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff must submit an amended complaint that complies with Federal Rule 8(a) and 

the court’s September 22, 2015, order by January 20, 2016. Failure to do so will result in 

findings and recommendations recommending that this matter be dismissed. 

DATED: December 2, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2