Briscoe, III v. County of Fresno et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting In Part Plaintiff's Second 20 Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint and Directing Clerk of Court to Send Plaintiff Copy of Screening Order 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/16/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE, III,
9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
RICHARD MADRID, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

16
17
18
19
20

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND (2) DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO SEND
/ PLAINTIFF COPY OF SCREENING
ORDER
(Doc. 20)

14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-0716-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983 (“Section 1983”). On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed his second motion to extend time to
file his amended complaint in compliance with the screening order entered on January 26, 2018,
currently due April 8, 2018, pursuant to a prior enlargement of time. (See Docs. 17 & 20.)
Plaintiff requests an additional extension of 180 days in which to file his amended complaint on
grounds that he has been transferred to the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California,
and is awaiting access to the legal research library. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff contends that his access

21

to the library for “approximately 1 to 2 hours” is “not enough time for [him] to adequately

22

research case law and prepare [his] Third Amended Complaint by or before the deadline.” (Id. at

23
24
25

2.)
While good cause exists to grant Plaintiff a second extension of time in which to file his
amended complaint, the Court finds that an extension of 180 days is excessive. As set forth more

26

fully in the Court’s January 26, 2018 screening order, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain

27

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.

28

1 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). Furthermore, to state a cognizable claim under Section 1983,
2 a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that he was deprived of a right secured by the
3 Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation was committed by a person
4 acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is the plaintiff’s burden
5 in bringing a claim under Section 1983 to allege, and ultimately establish, that the named
6 defendants were acting under color of state law when they deprived him of a federal right. Lee v.
7 Katz, 276 F.3d 550, 553–54 (9th Cir. 2002).
Given the clear standards set forth in the Court’s January 26, 2018 screening order by

8

9 which Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be evaluated—a copy of which is being provided along
10 with this order—the Court finds that an additional 30-day extension is sufficient to permit Plaintiff
11 adequate time to conduct legal research and marshal facts to attempt to state a cognizable claim
12 under Section 1983. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13

1.

14

Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from April 8, 2018, in which to file his amended
complaint; and

15

2.

16

The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s screening order
entered January 26, 2018 (Doc. 15).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated:
20

March 16, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.