Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05418/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05418-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SIDNEY THEODORE SCARLETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16

On November 2, 2016, the Court issued an order, ECF No. 13, granting Plaintiff 21 days to 

amend his complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 3, 2016 order, 

ECF No. 9. Later the same day, November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed three motions: a motion to 

extend time to “file and serve full response” to the Court’s October 3, 2016 order, ECF No. 14, a 

“Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the Equal Protection Clause,” ECF No. 15, 

and a “Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,” ECF No. 16.

The Court’s October 3, 2016, order did not require a written response. Additionally, 

Plaintiff’s motion to extend time did not specify what deadline Plaintiff sought to extend. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to extend time is DENIED. However, pursuant to the Court’s 

November 2, 2016 order, Plaintiff has until November 23, 2016 to amend his complaint to address 

Case 5:16-cv-05418-LHK Document 18 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

the deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 3, 2016 order. ECF No. 9, 13.

The Court shall address Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the 

Equal Protection Clause and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 

order after Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint or the deadline to file an amended complaint 

has passed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05418-LHK Document 18 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2