ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Randell Albert Hopkins ("Plaintiff'), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, which he initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to proceed informa pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF Doc. No. 4].
On June 6, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See June 6, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 10]. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave to amend. Id. at 7; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc)("[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.") (citations omitted).
Since then, Plaintiff has attempted to file various documents, most of which include reference to "1819 Constructive Notice" in their captions, and most of which have been rejected for failing to comply with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as a host of the Court's own Local Rules. See, e.g., ECF Doc. Nos. 5, 12, 13; Kingv. Atryeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that although the Court must construe the pleadings liberally, "[P]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."). Every time Plaintiff attempted to submit these documents, the Court provided him with directions to re-open his case by first complying with its June 6, 2013 Order requiring amendment.
On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff again submitted a document entitled "Request to Amend Records (per) 1819 Constructive Notice to Address with an Expedited Reply to My Issues of Grave Concerns, " this time including what appear to be exhibits in support of his intended claims, and a request for an "extension of time to meet Order, " which the Court now construes as a Motion for Extension of Time in which to submit his Amended Complaint [ECF Doc. No. 15].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This is Plaintiff's first request for an extension of time, he remains incarcerated, and is still proceeding without counsel. 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, without more, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff additional time in which to comply with the Court's June 6, 2013 Order. "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) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); 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 mere 30-day delay was result of prison-wide lockdown).
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend [ECF Doc. No. 15] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, should he elect to file one, must be received by the Court no later than Monday, September 16, 2013. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that his Amended Complaint must address all the deficiencies of pleading previously identified in the Court's June 6, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 10], and must be complete in itself without reference to his original Complaint. See S.D. CAL.CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original."); King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citation omitted) ("All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.").
2) If Plaintiff elects not to file an Amended Complaint by September 16, 2013, this case shall remain dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) for all the reasons set forth in the Court's ...