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
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?