Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LURA MERRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH 

TO FILE REPLY

(Doc. 66)

Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional 

claims against Defendants Fishburn,

1 Merritt and Carlson. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 13, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) 

status (Doc. 62) and Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on May 30, 2024 (Doc. 64). 

On June 12, 2024, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an extension of time within 

which to reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Doc. 66.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek a 28-day extension of time, to and including July 11, 2024. (Doc. 66 at 

3.) They assert Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to revoke IFP is lengthy and “includes 

1 Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint notes “Defendant Correa is sued under the name 

‘Fishburn.’” (See Doc. 53 at 1, n.1.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 67 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

extensive factual assertions and legal citations, and is accompanied by a request for judicial 

notices and twenty-eight pages of exhibits.” (Id.) Defendants maintain a substantive and thorough 

response to Plaintiff’s opposition will require a significant dedication of time. (Id.) Further, 

defense counsel states his obligations in other assigned matters will preclude him from filing a 

reply by the current deadline and provides specific information concerning those obligations. (Id. 

at 3-4, 6-7.) Defendants state they do not believe Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the requested 

extension and have not sought a previous extension of time to file and serve the reply. (Id. at 4.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte application for an extension of time within which to file a reply 

to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to revoke IFP status (Doc. 66) is 

GRANTED; 

2. Defendants SHALL file any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition no later than July 11, 

2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 67 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 2