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
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?