Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00338/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00338-8/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 

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending is plaintiff’s motion for a thirty day extension of his time to 

reply in support of his motion to compel. ECF No. 57. 

 Defendant Sagireddy’s response to plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed on June 25, 

2015, and served on plaintiff the same day. ECF No. 56 at 11. Plaintiff had ten days1

 to file a 

reply. ECF No. 55. On July 9, 2015,2 plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge his time to file a reply. 

ECF No. 57. Plaintiff’s motion for extension was filed after the deadline to file a reply and is 

therefore untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff’s motion does not offer any explanation as to 

why it is untimely and, more importantly, fails to identify any good cause for extending the 

 

1

 Seven days (ECF No. 55) plus an additional three days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

6(d). 

2

 Since plaintiff’s motion was submitted pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 

rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 58 Filed 07/16/15 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

deadline. ECF No. 57. The motion simply requests, without any explanation, an additional thirty 

days to reply. Id. The court will not grant a motion for additional time that offers no explanation 

for the requested extension. If plaintiff seeks additional time to file a reply, he must file a motion 

that establishes excusable neglect for his untimely motion to enlarge and good cause for granting 

the extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend his deadline to file a reply in support of his motion to 

compel (ECF No. 57) is denied. 

2. If plaintiff still seeks additional time to file a reply, within seven days of the filing of 

this order he may file another motion for extension that establishes excusable neglect for the 

untimely motion and good cause for granting the extension. 

DATED: July 16, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-00338-JAM-AC Document 58 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2