Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01798-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

08cv1798

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN BRAD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY WENNES, et al.,

Defendants .

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1798-L(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE

[doc. #22]

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, moves for a 90-day continuance of this action so he

may obtain legal counsel. Defendants object to a continuance contending that they have a

motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement [doc. #5] pending that has been

fully briefed and is ready for ruling. The Court notes that plaintiff, without the assistance of

counsel, timely filed a 122 page response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (See docket no.

8.)

Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8) in support of his motion. But this statutory section

is applicable to criminal actions only and therefore, it is not relevant in this civil case. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a specified deadline

for good cause: “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for

good cause, extend the time . . ..” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). In the present case, there is no

pending deadline to continue. Although plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 26 Filed 11/17/08 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 08cv1798

was due on October 31, 2008, he filed his opposition early, on October 22, 2008. Defendants

have filed their reply memorandum and therefore, the motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.

Because there is no current deadline, IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for a

continuance is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01798-L-JMA Document 26 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 2