Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01531/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01531-1/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. JOHNSON,

CDCR #E-11379, 

Case No. 15-cv-1531 GPC (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO AMEND

(ECF Doc. No. 9)

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Defendant.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

John A. Johnson (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the California Health Care

Facility in Stockton, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, which he

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 9, 2015. See Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1.

Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when

he filed his Complaint; instead, he submitted a certified copy of his prison trust account

statement (ECF Doc. No. 2), which the Court has construed as a Motion to Proceed In

FormaPauperis(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).In addition, Plaintiffsubmitted

two identical letters requesting permission to amend his original demand for punitive

damages, which the Court has construed as a Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF Doc.

Nos. 4, 6). See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)

-1- 15-cv-1531 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-01531-GPC-JMA Document 10 Filed 12/15/15 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

(“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as

well as complaints.”).

On November 5, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but

dismissed his Complaint failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and

§ 1915A(b) See ECF Doc. No. 7 at 10-11. The Court further granted Plaintiff 45 days

in which to file an Amended Complaint that addressed the deficiencies of pleading

identified by the Court. Id.; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should 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).

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a letter in which he claims to suffer

from hallucinations due to his psychiatric condition and the effect of various

medications. See Pl.’s Mot. (ECF Doc. No. 9) at 1. Plaintiff claims he is “not very well,”

has difficulty “put[ting] down a paragraph on paper,” and “in [his] hurry to amend, not

thinking right, messed up [the form] complaint” that the Clerk of Court sent to him

pursuant to the Court’s November 5, 2015 Order. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asksthat another form

Complaint be mailed to him, and for additional time in which to submit it, because he

was confused as to whether the 45 days previously granted included calendar or

“business” days. Id.

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is timely, he remains incarcerated, and

isstill proceeding without counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990) (court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right

to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to . . . technical procedural requirements.”).

Thus, the Court finds good cause existsto support Plaintiff’s request. “‘Strict time limits

. . . ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se . . . plaintiff’s

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.

-2- 15-cv-1531 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-01531-GPC-JMA Document 10 Filed 12/15/15 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

1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district

court’s dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as untimelywhere mere 30-day

delay was result of prison-wide lockdown). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend (ECF Doc. No. 9) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be

received by the Court no later than Monday, January 25, 2016. Plaintiff is again

cautioned, however, that his Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to his original Complaint. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged

in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal

Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989)

(“[A]n amended pleading supersedesthe original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d

896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not

re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with another blank

copy of the Court’s form “Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” for

Plaintiff’s use in amending. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must caption his pleading

as his Amended Complaint, and include Civil Case No. 15cv1531 GPC(JMA) on its title

page. 

3. If Plaintiff does not to file an Amended Complaint by January 25, 2016, this

civil action 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 November 5,

2015 Order, and without any further Order by the Court.

DATED: December 15, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

-3- 15-cv-1531 GPC (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-01531-GPC-JMA Document 10 Filed 12/15/15 Page 3 of 3