Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mel M. Marin v. Escondido Care

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 15, 2012

MEL M. MARIN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ESCONDIDO CARE, ET AL,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT. [Doc. No. 23]

On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to amend his Second Amended Complaint, ("SAC"). (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff also moved to proceedin forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and to have his IFP declaration sealed. (Id.) For the following reasons the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for an extension and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, to file his amended Complaint and pay the appropriate filing fee or file his amended complaint with the additional information described below. The Plaintiff is warned that no further extensions will be granted absent extreme good cause.

Whether an order sealing an IFP application should issue, is an exercise of the court's inherent supervisory power. Valley Broadcasting Co. United States Dist, Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court has explained that "the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that district court abused its discretion by unsealing record). An IFP motion is different than other motions in that it involves private and financial information and is strictly between the court and the party requesting IFP status and the information provided regarding the value of the home owned by the Plaintiff, is public record. However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to the Court to support his motion for IFP status. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a complete IFP application to chambers and the Court will make a determination as to whether it should be sealed. Because Plaintiff has not met the standard for IFP status, his motion is DENIED without prejudice.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a thirty (30) day extension to file an amended Complaint, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for IFP status and to seal his IFP declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121015

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.