Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272-10/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 

1 

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 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a request to exceed the page limit for his motions to compel and for a copy of 

the undersigned’s standing orders. ECF No. 62. He has also filed objections to defendants’ 

motion for an extension of time to respond to his first motion to compel in which he requests the 

court reconsider the order granting the motion. ECF No. 63. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to exceed the page limit for his motions to compel nunc pro 

tunc will be granted. The undersigned’s standing orders provide for a twenty-page limit for 

motions, however, plaintiff was not previously provided with a copy of that order or a warning 

about the page limits. The request for a copy of the undersigned’s standing orders will also be 

granted. 

 Plaintiff has also filed objections and a request for reconsideration of the order granting 

defendants’ motion for extension. ECF No. 63. Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for 

reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 64 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 3
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 

not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; 

and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 

230(j)(3)-(4). 

Although the court granted defendants’ motion before plaintiff could file an opposition, 

none of plaintiff’s objections identify new or different facts or circumstances that would warrant 

denying the motion. Though plaintiff accuses defendants of improperly labeling the motion “ex 

parte” (ECF No. 63 at 1-2), it was in fact an ex parte motion because it was made without a 

stipulation or response from plaintiff.1 See L.R. 144(c). Furthermore, though plaintiff argues it is 

improper for the court to consider defendants’ motion without providing him an opportunity to 

respond (ECF No. 63 at 7-8), the Local Rules explicitly allow for an initial ex parte extension, 

L.R. 144(c), and the court regularly grants motions for an extension of time without a response 

from the non-moving party. Plaintiff himself has received such extensions in the past. See ECF 

Nos. 20, 52. As for the contents of the motion for extension itself, the court finds nothing 

improper with the motion. The length of plaintiff’s motion alone would have established good 

cause to grant the requested extension, and counsel does not, as plaintiff assets, attempt to argue 

the merits of the motion to compel. Instead, counsel merely identifies the additional issues he 

believes are necessary to address that will require additional time and pages, which is entirely 

appropriate. The objections will therefore be overruled and the motion for reconsideration 

denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to exceed the page limit for his January 9, 2023 and 

January 19, 2023 motions to compel (ECF No. 62) nunc pro tunc is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the undersigned’s standing orders (ECF No. 62) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with a copy of the undersigned’s 

standing orders. 

1

 Plaintiff is advised that the term “ex parte” does not refer exclusively to matters involving in 

camera review and refers generally to motions made without a response from the non-moving 

party. 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 64 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

3. Plaintiff’s objections to defendants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to the 

January 9, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 63) are OVERRULED.

4. The motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendants’ motion for an 

extension of time (ECF No. 63) is DENIED.

DATED: February 10, 2023 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 64 Filed 02/13/23 Page 3 of 3