(PC) Cornelio v. Scott ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO CORNELIO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00476-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROTRACT THE DEADLINE 13 v. OF LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 SCOTT, et al., (ECF No. 13) 15 Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Julio Cornelio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 7, 2023, the Court screened the complaint and directed Plaintiff to file an 20 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.) 21 Plaintiff’s response is currently due on or before July 10, 2023. (Id.) 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to protract the deadline of leave to file 23 first amended complaint, filed June 26, 2023. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff requests a fortnight 24 extension because the prison law library has been closed for two weeks and will not reopen until 25 approximately June 29. (Id.) The Court construes the filing as a motion for extension of time to 26 file an amended complaint. 27 Having considered the request, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested 28 extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court finds that an extension of thirty days, rather 1 than fourteen, is appropriate under the circumstances. 2 Plaintiff is reminded that his first amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 3 but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 4 constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, 5 the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 6 level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 7 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 8 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 9 “buckshot” complaints). 10 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 11 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 12 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 13 Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to incorporate by 14 reference. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 13), is 17 GRANTED; 18 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a first 19 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s June 7, 2023 20 screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); and 21 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with 22 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: June 27, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28