Opinion
21-cv-01445-JLS-LL
11-03-2021
MEL MARIN, Plaintiff, v. KRISTINE CATANO, 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]
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge.
Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Mel Marin's ex parte motion for an extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) 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.) However, in a separate case wherein Plaintiff filed an identical ex parte motion to the instant motion, Marin v. Carroll, 21-cv-01453-JLS-DEB, Plaintiff represents that the county law library is now open. (21cv1453, 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.
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the same day that the Court issued its August 23, 2021 Order screening the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 6; 7.) Because Plaintiff filed the FAC before having the benefit the August 23, 2021 Order, justice so requires that the Court give Plaintiff leave to amend the FAC in accordance with that Order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's 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), Plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint and authorizes service of process”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.