1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL SANTANA SALGADO, Case No.: 23-cv-2099-MMA (BLM)

CDCR #F-57811

12

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

Plaintiff, 13 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO vs. FILE FIRST AMENDED 14

COMPLAINT

15 ROBERTO ARIAS, UNKNOWN JOHN Doc. No. 7 16

DOE,

17 Defendants. 18

19 Plaintiff Raul Santana Salgado (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed at 20 Calipatria State Prison, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983.1 See Doc. No. 1. On January 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 22 request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but dismissed the original complaint without 23 prejudice for failure to state a claim. Doc. No. 6. The Court gave Plaintiff 45 days to file 24 a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Id. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion 25 for Leave to Amend Complaint (“Motion”), in which Plaintiff elaborates on some facts 26

27 1 The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of 28 1 |] contained in the original complaint. See Doc. No. 7. Having already granted Plaintiff 2 || leave to file an FAC, the Court liberally construes the Motion as a request for an 3 extension of time to do so. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th 4 || Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se 5 ||motions[.]”). Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time. 6 must file a First Amended Complaint on or before April 15, 2025.” 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 1, 2024

Mita la -(eigllr 10 HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ||? As discussed in this Court’s January 29, 2024 Order, an amended complaint must be complete 23 by itself without reference to any previous version of his pleading; Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 24 || 15.1; Hal Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be 25 “considered waived if not repled’’); Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 26 || 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). If Plaintiff fails to timely amend, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 27 || plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may 28 convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).