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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

 

SHRUTI SHETTY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALPHABET, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 17-00589 SBA

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

Dkt. 14 

Plaintiff Shruti Shetty (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

initiated the instant action on February 3, 2017. Dkt. 1. On February 27, 2017, the Court 

issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend (“Order”). Dkt. 10. 

The Court afforded Plaintiff until March 20, 2017, to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5. 

The Court cautioned, “Failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline may result in 

the dismissal of the action in its entirety without further leave to amend.” Id. at 6. 

On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Request for Extension in Time to 

Submit Amended Complaint. Dkt. 14.1

 She requests a “few additional days” to amend her 

complaint. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that an extension is necessary due to: (1) “increased 

stress from filing multiple complaints and orders through 5 cases simultaneously filed [by 

her] in the last 1-2 months”; (2) the need to study “multiple legal subjects outside the scope 

of [her] work and knowledge”; and (3) her illness in early January and again in the first 

week of February. Id. at 1-2. 

 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff mailed the request on March 20, 2017. 

Case 4:17-cv-00589-SBA Document 16 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

The Court finds the asserted justifications for an extension largely unpersuasive. 

First, given that the Court issued its Order on February 27, Plaintiff’s illnesses in early 

January and the first week of February are irrelevant. While Plaintiff suggests her illnesses 

may have prevented her from filing an original complaint sufficient to withstand dismissal, 

that has no bearing on her ability to draft an amended complaint. Second, although 

Plaintiff may be managing deadlines in multiple actions, she has chosen to initiate these 

suits and must comply with typical litigation deadlines. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants 

are bound by the rules of procedure.”) Finally, while the Court appreciates that Plaintiff 

may not be versed in the law, the Court already took that into account when it afforded her 

21 days to amend her complaint. 

Despite the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff a brief extension of time to file 

an amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff waited until the amendment deadline 

to request an extension. As a result, eight days have already elapsed since the amendment 

deadline. Taking this into account, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional seven days 

to amend her complaint, with three additional days for service of the instant order by mail. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint by no later than Friday, April 

7, 2017. The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by this 

deadline WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 3/28/17 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-00589-SBA Document 16 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2