DeGeus v. Department of Child Support Services San Diego District Attorney

Filing 11

ORDER granting in part ECF NO. 10 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 09/24/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(stn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

DAVID DEGEUS,

Case No.: 24-cv-0055-WQH-AHG
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT SERVICES and SAN
DIEGO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY,

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

18

The matter before the Court is the Request for Extension to File Second Amended

19

Complaint (ECF No. 10) filed by Plaintiff David DeGeus.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No.

22

5.) On July 8, 2024, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC for failure to state a

23

claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted sixty (60) days

24

to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 11. On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the

25

Request for Extension to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.)

26

II.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give

28

leave” for a party to amend his pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
1
24-cv-0055-WQH-AHG

1

Nevertheless, the Court also has “the inherent authority to manage [its] dockets … with a

2

view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40,

3

47 (2016); see Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.

4

2014) (“[T]he district court’s discretion in denying amendment is ‘particularly broad’ when

5

it has previously given leave to amend.” (quoting Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d

6

616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004))).

7

Plaintiff seeks a six-month extension “to cure the Younger abstention barrier by

8

bringing ‘the state proceedings Plaintiff discusses in the FAC’ to conclusion.” (ECF No.

9

10 at 1 (quoting ECF No. 7 at 6–7).) He also intends “to cure the defects referenced in [the

10

Court’s Order] with regard to [42 U.S.C. § 1983].” Id. (citing ECF No. 7 at 7–9).

11

The Court concludes that a limited extension is warranted to permit Plaintiff to cure

12

the defects he identifies in his request. However, Plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing

13

that “justice so requires” an extension of six months, particularly given that the Court has

14

previously afforded Plaintiff opportunities to amend his Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

15(a)(2); see ECF No. 4 at 10; ECF No. 7 at 11.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Extension to File Second

18

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) is granted in part. No later than sixty (60) days from

19

the entry of this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, entitled “Second Amended

20

Complaint,” which cures the defects in the FAC identified by the Court (see ECF No. 7).

21

If no amended complaint is filed, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.

22

Dated: September 24, 2024

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
24-cv-0055-WQH-AHG