Ayers v. City of Memphis, Tennessee et al

Filing 10

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

Download PDF
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

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?