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)

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