UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 31, 2008
SERGIO ALEJANDRO RUIZ, PLAINTIFF,
C. ROJAS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On December 5, 2007, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, conducting the screening required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, and dismissing his complaint. Plaintiff was granted 45 days from the date the order was filed in which to file an Amended Complaint.
On January 24, 2008, Plaintiff moved ex parte for an extension of time to file his Amended Complaint, because he had not received the Court's order in a timely fashion. It appears the order was mailed to Plaintiff approximately 18 days after it was issued. Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request. He may file an Amended Complaint no later than 28 calendar days from the date this order is entered.
Plaintiff is advised his Amended Complaint must cure the defects identified in the Court's order of December 5, 2007. The Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177--79 (9th Cir. 1996).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.