Opinion
21-cv-01453-JLS-DEB
11-03-2021
MEL MARIN, Plaintiff, v. CONSTANCE CARROLL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT
[ECF NOS. 9; 11; 12]
Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Mel Marin's ex parte motions for an extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 9; 12.) Plaintiff represents that he requires additional time to file an amended complaint because of postal delays in receiving the Court's August 23, 2021 Order screening the Complaint and closure of the county law library. (See ECF No. 9.) In his more recent motion, however, Plaintiff represents that the county law library is now open, and he seeks “only 15 days extra to file his amended complaint.” (ECF No. 12 at 1.)
Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until fourteen days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.
Also before the Court is Plaintiffs ex parte motion for an extension of time “to serve the complaint to a point after [he] amends his complaint to avoid dismissal for failure to serve.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and this case has not yet survived screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiffs request for additional time to serve any amended complaint is hereby DENIED as premature. See also Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1204 n.8 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that “[o]ther federal circuit courts of appeals have held that the [90]-day service period is tolled until the court screens a plaintiffs in forma pauperis complaint and authorizes service of process”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.