Marin v. Escondido Care Center et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint; denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 23 Motion to File IFP Declaration Under Seal; plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to file his Amended Complaint and pay the filing fee or file his Amended Complaint with the additional information. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/15/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ESCONDIDO CARE, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
_____________________________________ )
Mel M. Marin,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Civil No. 11-cv-01610- AJB (JMA)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME TO AMEND
COMPLAINT.
[Doc. No. 23]

On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to amend his Second

18

Amended Complaint, (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis

19

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and to have his IFP declaration sealed. (Id.) For the following

20

reasons the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an extension and DENIES without prejudice

21

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, to file his

22

amended Complaint and pay the appropriate filing fee or file his amended complaint with the additional

23

information described below. The Plaintiff is warned that no further extensions will be granted absent

24

extreme good cause.

25

Whether an order sealing an IFP application should issue, is an exercise of the court’s inherent

26

supervisory power. Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States Dist, Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.

27

1986). The Supreme Court has explained that “the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best

28

left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and
1

11cv01610

1

circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599

2

(1978); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that district court abused

3

its discretion by unsealing record). An IFP motion is different than other motions in that it involves

4

private and financial information and is strictly between the court and the party requesting IFP status

5

and the information provided regarding the value of the home owned by the Plaintiff, is public record.

6

However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to the Court to support his motion for IFP

7

status. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a complete IFP application to chambers and the Court will make a

8

determination as to whether it should be sealed. Because Plaintiff has not met the standard for IFP

9

status, his motion is DENIED without prejudice.

10

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty (30) day

11

extension to file an amended Complaint, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for IFP

12

status and to seal his IFP declaration.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: October 15, 2012

16
17

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

11cv01610