The opinion of the court was delivered by: William Q. Hayes United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 10]
On June 18, 2010, Carl Livingston Rouse ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison located in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 6, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim as well as seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See Aug. 6, 2010 Order at 4-5. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint in order to correct multiple deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id.
Plaintiff was further reminded that his Amended Complaint would supersede the original, and that any claim asserted against any Defendant not re-named in his Amended Complaint would be considered waived. Id. at 5 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).
On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File his First Amended Complaint and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time but denied Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. See Aug. 30, 2010 Order at 3. On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. However, the Court, once again, found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and sought monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Nov. 19, 2010 Order at 5. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id.
On December 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for 30 day Continuance and Motion to Appoint Counsel" [Doc. No. 10]. In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file his Second Amended Complaint and reconsideration of the Court's previous Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
This is Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time, but he is still proceeding without counsel and his request is timely. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (court has a "duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim due to ... technical procedural requirements."). Thus, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's request. "Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon where restraints resulting from a pro se ... plaintiff's incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines." Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district court's dismissal of prisoner's amended pro se complaint as untimely where 30-day delay was result of prison-wide lockdown).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to file his ...