Hagan v. Bluman et al

Filing 6

ORDER Granting Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is signed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Courts February 28, 2017 Order. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

KEVIN HAGAN,
CDCR#AM-6145

15
16

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB

v.
SCOTT MICHAEL BLUMAN;
CHARLES CHILDERS; SCOTTY
ELECTRIC CO.; KATHY BURGESS,

[ECF No. 5]

Defendant.

17
18
19

I.

Procedural History

20

On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

21

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Court conducted the required sua sponte screening and

22

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be

23

granted. (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days leave from February

24

28, 2017 to file an amended complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading

25

identified by the Court. (Id.) However, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint

26

within that time frame. Instead, on June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion and Request

27

for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” which the Court construes as a motion for

28

extension of time to file an amended pleading.
1
3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB

1

II.

2

Motion for Extension of Time
In Plaintiff’s latest Motion, he claims that he has not been allowed access to the

3

prison law library. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Based on these allegations, the Court will provide

4

Plaintiff with an additional sixty (60) days in which to file a First Amended Complaint.

5

“‘Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro

6

se ... plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge

7

v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465,

8

468 (9th Cir. 1967).

9

III.

Conclusion

10

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File First

11

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty (60) days leave from

12

the date this Order is signed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all

13

the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s February 28, 2017 Order. If Plaintiff

14

fails to file an amended pleading within this time frame, the Court will issue a final Order

15

of dismissal.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2017
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-02976-LAB-JLB