Opinion
21-cv-01453-JLS-DEB
12-09-2021
MEL MARIN, Plaintiff, v. CONSTANCE CARROLL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [ECF NO. 18]
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge.
Presently before the Court is a “Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Not More Than 30 Days” (ECF No. 18). The Court construes this filing as a joint motion, as stipulations are not permitted in the Southern District of California. CivLR 7.2(b) (“Any stipulation for which court approval is sought must first be filed as a ‘joint motion.'”).
In their joint motion, the Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint from December 5, 2021, to January 5, 2022. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) As the Court explained in its September 17, 2021 Order (ECF No. 6), Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and Defendants need not file a responsive pleading in this case unless Plaintiff's complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and until service is effectuated. See Marczuk v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, No. 2:17-cv-02991-GMN-PAL, 2019 WL 2112984, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2019) (“Federal courts must screen any IFP complaint before allowing the case to move forward, issuing summons, and requiring an answer or responsive pleading.”). Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) is currently in mandatory pre-answer screening before the Court. If the Court finds that the Second Amended Complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to issue a summon(s) and provide Plaintiff with an IFP Package.
Although captioned “First Amended Complaint, ” the Court accepted Plaintiffs second filing of First Amended Complaint and construed it as a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.)
Accordingly, the Court DENIES as premature the Parties' request for an extension of the responsive pleading deadline. The Court must also note that Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is not a registered CM/ECF signatory and is not permitted to electronically sign filings. See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedure Manual § 2.f. The Court once again cautions the parties against further failure to comply with the rules of this Court. (See ECF No. 6 at 1 n. 1.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.