Ayers v. City of Memphis, Tennessee et al

Filing 10

Order Granting Motion For Extension Of Time To Amend (ECF No. 9)

Case 2:21-cv-02383-JTF-atc Document 10 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

PageID 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
RAYMOND AYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:21-cv-02383-JTF-atc

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND (ECF NO. 9)
On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff Raymond Ayers filed a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1.) Ayers submitted the $402 civil filing fee with his complaint. (ECF No. 6.) When
Ayers filed his pleading, he was not confined. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 5.) On December 16, 2021,
the Court modified the docket, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim to relief, and
granted leave to amend within fourteen days. (ECF No. 8.) Ayers’s time to amend expired on
Thursday, December 30, 2021. (See id. at PageID 17.)
On January 3, 2022, Ayers filed a motion to extend his time to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Ayers
does not specify the amount of time he seeks. (Id.) He contends there is “good cause” for the
requested extension of time, but his arguments are difficult to construe. Ayers alleges that “this
Court[’s] opinion that Plaintiff has fail[ed] to state a claim … is not the opinion of Mr. Justice
Kennedy … [or] … Mr. Justice Souter who delivered the opinion of the Court in the Court of Bell
Atlantic Corp.” (Id. at PageID 18.) Ayers further contends that this Court “used the wrong
standard of review toward dismiss[ing] Plaintiff[’s] cause of action.” (Id.) Ayers cites no authority

Case 2:21-cv-02383-JTF-atc Document 10 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

PageID 21

in support of his contention, which flatly contradicts governing precedent. (See ECF No. 8 at
PageID 13-14 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Adickes v. S.H. Kress &
Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970); Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2011); and Hill v. Lappin,
630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010)).)
Nevertheless, because Ayers is appearing pro se and because his deadline to amend expired
the day before the December 31, 2021 federal New Year’s holiday, the Court affords him a
reasonable extension to amend his claims. Ayers’s motion for extension of time to amend (ECF
No. 9) is GRANTED. Ayers may file an amended complaint ON OR BEFORE MONDAY,
JANUARY 17, 2022 that complies with the guidelines set forth in the Court’s December 16, 2021
order. (See ECF No. 8 at PageID 15-17.) If Ayers fails to amend his complaint in a timely manner,
the Court will dismiss this case and enter judgment. The Court recommends that any such
dismissal of this case be treated as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Simons v.
Washington, No. 20-1406, 2021 WL 1727619, at *1 (6th Cir. May 3, 2021). The Court notifies
Ayers that no further extensions of time to amend will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2022.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2