Chabrowski v. Cretan

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DEREK CHABROWSKI, 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court No. C-12-4443 EMC CLIFFORD V. CRETAN, 12 Defendant. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 36) 13 14 15 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to file a first 16 amended complaint. The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot, as the Court has 17 dismissed Plaintiff’s entire complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment in this matter. 18 The Court refers Plaintiff to the last paragraph of its order of February 25, 2013, in which it held 19 that, 20 21 22 23 24 25 [a]s judicial immunity, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine serve to bar this suit, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction and order to show cause. Because any attempt to plead around these doctrines would be futile, the dismissal is with prejudice. Although the Court indicated at the hearing in this matter that it intended to dismiss this case without prejudice and with leave to amend, upon further review it appears that any attempt to plead around these doctrines would be futile. Thus, the dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 26 Order, Docket No. 34, at 4. Even if the Court had not determined that dismissal was futile and 27 proceeded with its original intent to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s current 28 motion for an extension would still be denied, as the Court indicated that Plaintiff would have thirty 1 days from the hearing date on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, January 29, 2013, within which to file 2 an amended complaint, yet Plaintiff waited forty-one days to file the current motion for an extension 3 of time in which to file an amended complaint. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 36. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: March 12, 2013 9 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?