Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00731-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF ARIEL TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.

Defendants.

1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR 

EXTENSION OT TIME TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT IN PART; DISCHARGING 

ORDER REQUIRING STATUS REPORT 

REGARDING REPRESENTATION OF 

DEFENDANT NARVAIZ

(ECF Nos. 19, 20, 22) 

DEADLINE: September 13, 2024

On June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 15, 

2024, Defendant Monica Narvaiz filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 13.) On August 

15, 2024, Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Jeffrey 

Macomber, Kevin Hixon, Diane Toche, Connie Gipson, Frederick Beryerlein, Ulises Ojeda, and 

Elizabeth Beltran filed a motion to dismiss, which has been referred to the undersigned for the 

preparation of findings and recommendations.

1

 (ECF Nos. 14, 16.) Defendant Bianca Truong 

has not filed a responsive pleading.

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for administrative relief for an extension of 

time until September 13, 2024 to file an amended complaint pursuant to Local Rules 233 and 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on August 29, 2024. No 

opposition has been filed. 

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 26 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 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

2

144.

2

 (ECF No. 19.) Construing the instant request as a motion for administrative relief pursuant 

to Local Rule 233,

3 Plaintiffs request an extension to time to file an amended complaint on or 

before September 13, 2024. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs proffer the amended complaint will address the 

issues subject to the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs state that should they fail to file an 

amended complaint by September 13, 2024, the motion to dismiss filed on August 15, 2024 “will 

be deemed to be filed on behalf of Defendant Truong....” (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs also represent 

that “Plaintiffs need not file a response to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, as the Amended 

Complaint will supersede the original Complaint.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants CDCR, Macomber, 

Hixon, Toche, Gipson, Beryerlein, Ojeda, Beltran, and Truong stipulated to Plaintiffs’ motion. 

(Id.) On September 3, 2024, Defendant Narvaiz filed a statement of non-opposition. 

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to file an 

amended complaint by September 13, 2024. However, if Plaintiffs fail to file an amended 

complaint on or before September 13, 2024, Defendant Truong will not automatically be 

“deemed” to have filed the motion to dismiss on August 15, 2024 without further motion or 

stipulation by the parties. In the event Plaintiffs decide not to file an amended complaint, they 

shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) no later 

than September 13, 2024. 

Given the substitution of attorney for Defendant Narvaiz filed on September 3, 2024, the 

Court shall discharge its August 30, 2024 order requiring counsel Corinna Sue Arbiter to file a 

status report regarding her representation of Defendant Narvaiz.4

/ / /

2 The instant motion for extension of time contains a “joint stipulation for administrative relief” signed by Plaintiffs

and counsel for “Defendants, CDCR, et al.” (Id. at 2.) Because it was not clear to the Court whether Defendant 

Narvaiz stipulated to the extension of time, the Court could not construe the filing as a stipulation pursuant to Local 

Rule 144. Accordingly, on August 30, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring counsel Corinna Sue Arbiter to file 

a status report regarding her representation of Defendant Narvaiz, or, alternatively, a proper motion requesting relief. 

On September 3, 2024, counsel for Defendant Narvaiz filed a substitution of attorney. (ECF No. 21.)

3 The Court reiterates that it strongly encourages the parties to file stipulations signed by all parties who have 

appeared and are affected when requesting extensions of time. L.R. 144(a).

4 Ms. Arbiter shall refrain from signing future filings in this Court representing that she is an attorney for 

“Defendants, CDCR, et al.”

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 26 Filed 09/04/24 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

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief for extension of time to file an amended

complaint is GRANTED in part;

2. On or before September 13, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file either:

a. A first amended complaint; or

b. An opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants CDCR,

Jeffrey Macomber, Kevin Hixon, Diane Toche, Connie Gipson, Frederick

Beryerlein, Ulises Ojeda, Elizabeth Beltran’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.

14);

3. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or brief in conformance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules; and

4. The Court’s August 30, 2024 order requiring Counsel Corinna Sue Arbiter to file a

status report regarding her representation of Defendant Narvaiz is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00731-KES-SAB Document 26 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 3