1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWIN E. CHAVEZ, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00624-JLS-BGS CDCR #K-49549 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS Plaintiff, 13 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO v. FILE FIRST AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT CDCR; J. CLARK; CALIFORNIA 15 CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE 16 SERVICES; SCOTT KERNAN; (ECF Nos. 5, 7) P. JAYASUNDARA; S. ROBERT; 17 M. GLYNN; WARDEN DANIEL 18 PARAMO; KATHLEEN ALLISON; D. STRAYHORN; S. GATES; and DOES 19 1 to 50, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 I. Procedural History 24 On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983. See ECF No. 1. On June 17, 2019, the Court conducted the required sua sponte 26 screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. 27 See ECF No. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff forty-five days leave to file an amended 28 complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. 1 On August 13, 2019, and later on August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed requests seeking 2 || an extension of time to comply with the Court’s June 17, 2019 Order. See ECF Nos. 5, 7. 3 || Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an additional forty-five days to file his amended pleading. See 4 ||ECF No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff claims that he has been “conducting legal research” and is 5 || awaiting receipt of his medical records in order to “present a better case to the Court.” Id. 6 |/II. Conclusion and Order 7 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of 8 Time to file a First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 5, 7). Plaintiff is given an additional 9 || sixty (60) days leave from the date this Order is signed in which to comply with the Court’s 10 17, 2019 Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within this time frame, 11 Court will dismiss this entire action for the reasons set forth in the June 17, 2019 Order 12 || and for failing to comply with a Court Order. 13 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to his 14 || original pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended 15 ||Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. 16 ||v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 17 pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cty.,

(9th Cir. 18 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 19 ||amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.’’). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: September 24, 2019 . tt 22 jen Janis L. Sammartino 73 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28