United States District Court, E.D. California
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 50.) Defendant opposes the motion. (ECF No. 51.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is denied and this action is dismissed.
This civil rights action arises out of Plaintiff's pursuit of a Ph.D. at the University of California. In 2008, Defendant removed the action from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On January 24, 2014, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days. In that order, the Court stated:
[W]hile the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, the Court also notes Plaintiff's repeated attempts over the past few decades to seek the same relief through various lawsuits. See Zochlinski v. Univ. of Cal., No. CIVS041702DFLPANPS, 2005 WL 2417649, at *5 ("Defendants have been tasked for more than ten years with defending the same set of facts in state and federal court. Plaintiff's repeated filings coupled with his failure adequately to present his claims suggests harassment as a motive this court should not further tolerate."). Therefore, as mentioned in this Court's Order dated March 26, 2008, should the Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order, this Court will not hesitate to dismiss this action.
(Order, ECF No. 49 at 2:26-3:6 (emphasis added).) Instead of filing an amended complaint, however, Plaintiff has filed this motion to extend the time. Plaintiff avers that illness, dental problems, computer access, financial problems, and heating issues have interfered with his efforts to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 50 at 2-4.)
Upon a showing of good cause the court may extend the time for a party to act. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). In this case, however, Plaintiff's stated reasons in support of his motion are belied by the detailed nature of the motion itself. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time contains approximately ten pages of detailed text. Additionally, within his declaration Plaintiff states that he has recently completed petitions for reconsideration of his reinstatement and submitted those petitions to the Defendant. These petitions together consist of over eight pages of additional text, single-spaced. ( See ECF No. 50 at 15-23; Snyder Decl., ECF No. 51-1 at Exs. A & B.) Like Plaintiff's motion these petitions are replete with detail. Accordingly, the Court finds that the proffered reasons by Plaintiff (even if true) do not support his request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, and therefore do not constitute good cause.
Furthermore, this case has been pending for over six years; Plaintiff has been provided ample time to prepare his amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff has also received specific instruction from this Court, twice, as to what the amended complaint must entail. ( See Order, ECF No. 28 at 3:25-4:19, 5:19-24; ECF No. 49 at 2:20-25.) This is also Plaintiff's third request for an extension; Plaintiff has been provided previous extensions to file documents. ( See Order, ECF No. 45 (providing extension to file objections); ECF No. 48 (providing extension to file objections).) In at least one of those orders, this Court, through the Honorable Magistrate Judge Delaney, admonished Plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted. These circumstances further weigh against a finding of good cause.
Because Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint within the time ordered by this Court and has failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the deadline to file his amended complaint, the Court shall order this action dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This action is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's remaining claims; and
2. The clerk is directed to close ...