Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

LOUIS JOSEPH BOUDOUSQUIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Defendant,

No. 2:23-cv-0948 DAD DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Louis Joseph Boudousquie is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On August 28, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and a request for entry of 

defendant’s default. (ECF Nos. 5 & 6.) On September 7, 2023, the Clerk of the Court denied 

plaintiff’s request for entry of defendant’s default due to plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the 

defendant. (ECF No. 7.) 

On September 29, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to serve 

defendant. (ECF No. 8.) On October 2, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to 

seek entry of defendant’s default. (ECF No. 11.) However, on November 8, 2023, counsel for 

defendant appeared and filed a request for an extension of time to file a response to the complaint. 

(ECF No. 12.) Therein, counsel explains that they were only recently assigned to the matter and 

require additional time to prepare a response. On November 13, 2023, plaintiff filed an 

Case 2:23-cv-00948-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 11/17/23 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

opposition to defendant’s request. (ECF No. 13.) Although plaintiff’s desire to proceed with this 

action is understandable defendant has established good cause to grant an extension of time. 

On October 2, 2023, plaintiff also filed a request for permission for electronic filing. 

(ECF No. 9.) Because plaintiff’s filing simply states that plaintiff requests “permission to 

participate in electronic filing” the undersigned is concerned that plaintiff may not be aware of 

this court’s requirements for electronic filing. See generally Local Rules 131, 133, 137, 140, & 

141. Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, will be denied without prejudice to filing a renewed motion 

that acknowledges plaintiff has reviewed the court’s Local Rules and requirements for electronic 

filing. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s November 8, 2023 request for an extension of time (ECF No. 12) is 

granted; 

2. Defendant shall file a response to plaintiff’s complaint on or before December 18, 

2023;

3. Plaintiff’s August 28, 2023 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 5) is denied as 

having been rendered moot;

4. Plaintiff’s September 29, 2023 motion for an extension of time to serve defendant 

(ECF No. 8) is denied as having been rendered moot;

5. Plaintiff’s October 2, 2023 motion for permission for electronic filing (ECF No. 9) is 

denied without prejudice to renewal; and

6. Plaintiff’s October 2, 2023 motion for extension of time to request entry of defendant’s 

default (ECF No. 11) is denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot. 

Dated: November 16, 2023

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/boudousquie0948.eot.ord

Case 2:23-cv-00948-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 2