Murillo v. Parkinson et al

Filing 9

ORDER Granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be received by the Court no later than Friday, December 23, 2011. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/21/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RAMON MURILLO,
CDCR # P-43503,

Civil No.
Plaintiff,

11
vs.
12
13
14
15

11-1687 BEN (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

IAN PARKINSON; COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO; ULLOA; MAYES; ADAMS;
MANPAL; RUSHING; P. FLOURNEY; T.
GOFF; VILLAROMAN; DENNIS MORRIS;
CHARLES MARSH; JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.

16
17

Ramon Murillo (“Plaintiff”), who is currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan

18

Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se and has initiated this

19

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In

20

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 3], as well as a Motion for

21

Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 4].

22

On October 11, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but denied his Motion for

23

Appointment of Counsel and dismissed his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

24

1915A(b). See Oct. 11, 2011 Order [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave to file an

25

Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id.

26

at 8; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district

27

court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless

28

it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted).)

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\11cv1687-Grt Ext FAC.wpd

1

11cv1687 BEN (BGS)

1
2

On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a Motion requesting an extension of time in
which to file his Amended Complaint [ECF No. 8].

3

I.

4

S TANDARD OF R EVIEW

5

This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time, he is still proceeding without

6

counsel and his request is timely. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

7

Cir. 1990) (court has a “duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on

8

the merits of their claim due to ... technical procedural requirements.”). Thus, the Court finds

9

good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request. “‘Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’

10

where restraints resulting from a pro se ... plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance

11

with court deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino

12

v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th

13

Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s amended pro se complaint as

14

untimely where mere 30-day delay was result of prison-wide lockdown).

15

II.

16

C ONCLUSION AND O RDER

17

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to file an

18

Amended Complaint [ECF No. 8]. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be received by the

19

Court no later than Friday, December 23, 2011. Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned that his

20

Amended Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the

21

Court’s October 11, 2011 Order [ECF No. 6], and must be complete in itself without reference

22

to his original complaint. See S.D. C AL. C IVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner

23

& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 21, 2011

26
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

27
28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\11cv1687-Grt Ext FAC.wpd

2

11cv1687 BEN (BGS)