(PC) Munoz v. Toor et al
ORDER GRANTING 15 Plaintiff's Construed Motion for Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 05/22/2023. Amended Complaint due by 6/12/2023. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-1201-JLT-HBK
DR. KIRAN TOOR, DR. V. MUNUNURI,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
CONSTRUED MOTION FOR EXTENSION
(Doc. No. 15)
On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff, a former state prisoner,1 filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 15). On March 6, 2023, the Court issued a screening order
finding that Plaintiff’s initial complaint failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff was given
twenty-one (21) days to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the March 6, 2023
screening order. (Id.). On April 11, 2023, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or
otherwise respond to the March 6, 2023 screening order, the undersigned issued Findings and
Recommendations recommending the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with a court order and prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 11). Thereafter, on April 21,
2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond to the March 6, 2023
screening order. (Doc. No. 12). On April 25, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension,
Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated he is not entitled to the mailbox rule.
directing him to respond to the March 6, 2023 Screening Order no later than May 16, 2023.
(Doc. No. 14).
Plaintiff’s instant motion requests leave to file an amended complaint; however, given the
procedural posture of this case explained supra, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a
request for a further extension of time to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the
March 6, 2023 screening order. For good cause shown, a court may grant an extension of time “if
a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires” or, if made after the time has
expired, the party shows excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), (B). Although the instant
motion is untimely and procedurally deficient because Plaintiff fails to provide any reason why a
further extension is warranted, given Plaintiff’s pro se status and in the interests of justice the
Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension of time. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint
or otherwise respond to the Court’s March 6, 2023 screening order (Doc. No. 9) no later than
June 12, 2023.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s construed motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED
to the extent Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s March
6, 2023 screening order no later than June 12, 2023.
If Plaintiff timely complies with this Order by filing either an amended complaint
or response to the Court’s March 6, 2023 screening order, the undersigned will vacate and/or
amend her April 11, 2023 Findings and Recommendations as appropriate.
If Plaintiff does not timely comply with this Order, the undersigned will not vacate
her April 11, 2023 Findings and Recommendations.
May 22, 2023
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?