(PC) Gonzalez v. Akhavan et al

Filing 10

ORDER CONSTRUING Plaintiff's 9 Response to Screening Order as Motion for Extension of Time; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/26/2024. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAIME CESAR GONZALEZ,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
AKHAVAN, et al.,

Case No. 1:23-cv-01506-BAM (PC)
ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO SCREENING ORDER AS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF No. 9)

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 9)

13

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

11

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Jaime Cesar Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 4, 2024, the

17

Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint or a notice

18

of voluntary dismissal within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.)

19

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the screening order, filed March 25,

20

2024. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff states that the screening order he received names a Defendant M.

21

Pallares, who he did not name. Plaintiff requests an extension of thirty days to know whether this

22

is a mistake that needs to be corrected or not. (Id.)

23

The Court construes the filing as a request for an extension of time. Having considered

24

the request, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

6(b).

26

Plaintiff is informed that the inclusion of Defendant Pallares in the caption of the

27

screening order was a clerical error by the Court. The caption as reflected above, naming

28

Defendant Akhavan, is the correct caption for this case. Plaintiff does not need to take any action
1

1
2

to correct the mistake.
Plaintiff is reminded that his first amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),

3

but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

4

constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true,

5

the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative

6

level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).

7

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated

8

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no

9

“buckshot” complaints).

10

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

11

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended

12

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”

13

Local Rule 220.

14
15
16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s response to screening order, (ECF No. 9), is CONSTRUED as a motion for
extension of time;

17

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 9), is GRANTED;

18

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first

19

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s March 4, 2024

20

screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); and

21
22

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with
prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 26, 2024

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2