Barnard v. The United States Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BARNARD, Case No.: 20-cv-493-GPC(MDD)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINITFF’S v. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

COMPLAINT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), DHS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE

[Dkt. No. 13.]

(DHS-MGMT), FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES (FPS) P. YOUNG (ID NO. 1074), and DOES 1 through 5, all in their individual capacity, inclusive; in the same incident; THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTETION, and DOES 6 through 10, all in their individual capacity, inclusive,

Defendants.

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.)

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against Defendant P. Young (ID No. 1074), a Protective Security Officer (“PSO”), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Management Directorate, General Services Administration, (“GSA”), Federal Protective Services and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his civil rights based on his unlawful detention, unlawful seizure of his vehicle and an unlawful arrest during a stop at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on March 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 3.) On May 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2020. (Dkt. No. 6.) On August 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second motion for extension of time to amend the complaint until November 1, 2020. (Dkt. No. 8.) Instead of filing an amended complaint, on November 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 10.) On January 15, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by April 15, 2021. (Dkt. No. 11.)

In his third request, Plaintiff explains that due to his medical condition, and negative side effects of prescribed medication, he is unable to retain an attorney as well as other reasons why he is unable to timely file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 13 at 6- 7.1) He seeks 90 days not exceeding August 1, 2021 to retain an attorney to amend the complaint. (Id. at 7.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint until August 1, 2021.

If Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint on or before August 1, 2021, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing the case based on his failure to prosecute. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.’’).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2021 Casto 0h

Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge