Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. RALLOS, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1272 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Defendants Rallos, Phile, Allen, and Zamora have filed a motion for a forty-five-day 

extension of time to oppose plaintiff’s second motion to compel and for relief from the twentypage limitation on their opposition. ECF No. 66. 

 Plaintiff’s second motion to compel indicates that it was served on January 17, 2023 (ECF 

No. 57 at 178), making defendants’ opposition due by February 10, 2023,1

 see L.R. 230(l) 

(opposition to pro se prisoner motions due within twenty-one days of service); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(d) (providing additional three days after deadline would otherwise expire when service is by 

mail). Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, filed February 24, 2023, is therefore 

untimely and is not accompanied by a motion for leave to untimely file or an explanation for the 

untimeliness. 

1

 The deadline would be the same even if defendants calculated their deadline using the date the 

motion was served via the Notice of Electronic Filing that was automatically generated by 

CM/ECF at the time the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff’s document with the system. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 68 Filed 02/28/23 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 

When a party seeks an extension of time after the deadline has passed, the court may grant 

such extension “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(B). Although defendants have failed to offer an explanation for the untimely motion, it 

appears that they may have intended to seek an extension of time to respond to the second motion 

to compel at the same time they sought an extension of time to respond to the first motion to 

compel and belatedly realized their omission. This demonstrates excusable neglect and the 

motion for an extension of time will therefore be granted. However, defendants are cautioned 

that any future untimely motions must be accompanied by a request for leave to untimely file or 

the untimely filings will be stricken from the record. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time and to exceed the page limit (ECF No. 66) 

is GRANTED; 

 2. Defendants shall have an additional forty-five days, up to March 27, 2023, to file their 

opposition to plaintiff’s second motion to compel (ECF No. 57); and 

 3. Defendants are relieved of the twenty-page limit for their response. 

DATED: February 28, 2023 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 68 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2