Mickey v. Williams

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 9 — 10 RYAN CHRISTOPHER MICKEY, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01751-RBM-LR CDCR #AD-2970, — 11 — ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiff, 12 REQUESTING EXTENSION vs. OF TIME TO AMEND — 13 — 14 [Doc. 5] SERGEANT WILLIAMS, et al., — 15 — Defendants. — 16 — — 17 — 18 Plaintiff Ryan Christopher Mickey, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma 20 pauperis, but instead paid the full filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a). (Doc. 2.) 21 On July 29, 2025, the Court conducted its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and dismissed it sua sponte for failure to state a claim 23 upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 4.) The Court explained Plaintiff’s pleading 24 deficiencies, and granted him leave to cure them by September 12, 2025. (Id. at 8‒9.) On 25 September 15, 2025, however, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 60-day extension of 26 time in which to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff claims he has limited 27 access to the prison law library, and must rely on a paging system and others to assist him. 28 (Id. at 1.) l The Court finds Plaintiff's motion timely because he declares to have deposited it in 2 prison mailbox on September 2, 2025. (/d. at 3.) See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 3 ||270—72 (1988) (deeming notice of appeal to be “filed” when prisoner delivers it to prison 4 authorities for forwarding to the district court); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 , 1107 5 || (9th Cir. 2009) (“Houston mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners.”’). 6 The Court further finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's request. Federal Rule of Civil 7 || Procedure 6(b)(1) provides, “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, 8 [C]ourt may, for good cause, extend the time” in which to comply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 || 6(b)(1). ““[S]trict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting 10 a pro se prisoner plaintiff's incarceration prevent timely compliance with court 11 ||deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Tarantino v. 12 || Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967)). 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request. Plaintiff's amended complaint 14 comply fully with the Court’s July 29, 2025 Order, and must be filed with the Clerk 15 the Court on or before November 17, 2025. Should Plaintiff fail to timely amend, the 16 Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action both for failure to state a claim 17 ||upon which § 1983 can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and for failure to 18 || prosecute in compliance with the Court’s orders. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164 , 1169 19 Cir. 2005) (‘If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 20 complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of 21 entire action.”). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: October 9, 2025 FR Bo ? L > 24 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — NIALL □□□□□□