Ross v. Padres LP et al

Filing 28

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 27 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/7/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VAN J. ROSS,

Case No.: 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO AMEND

v.
PADRES LP, et al.,

15

(ECF No. 27)

Defendants.

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Van J. Ross’s Motion to “Reinstate and

18

Amend” Complaint. (ECF No. 27.) The Court’s most recent order granted Defendants’

19

motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See ECF No. 25.) In the order,

20

the Court allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint within thirty days from when the order

21

was published. (Id. at 15.) Therefore, Plaintiff does not need to request leave to amend

22

his complaint, he just needs to file an amended complaint. The Court cannot “reinstate”

23

his original complaint because it was dismissed.

24

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his complaint is held to less stringent

25

standards that formal pleadings. See Garmon v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 846

26

(9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). This is especially true in civil rights cases. See id.

27

Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for extension of time to file

28

an amended complaint and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No.
1
17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB)

1

27). Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended complaint, on or before twenty-one (21) days

2

from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB)