Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06001-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G. FUNTANILLA, Jr. ,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. TRISTAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6001 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY FILING FEE

AS MOOT (Doc. 146.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

TO THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 150.) 

G. Funtanilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 5, 2005, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendant’s

Motion to have Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis status revoked and the case dismissed. The Court

stayed the pending deadlines pending the resolution of the Findings and Recommendations by

the District Court. 

On August 1, 2005, a person representing Plaintiff paid the filing fee on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 151 Filed 08/12/05 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

Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to pay the filing fee on August 3, 2005, not

realizing that the fee had already been paid. On August 9, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion for time to pay the filing fee. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s should not

be allowed to proceed with the action simply because he paid the filing fee. 

In light of the payment of the fee, Plaintiff’s Motion is moot. Accordingly, it will be

denied. This denial, however, does not resolve whether or not the action will be dismissed as

that decision will be made by the District Court upon its de novo review of the Findings and

Recommendations. 

Plaintiff, on August 9, 2005, has also moved for an extension of time to file his

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff states that he has not been able to

complete his research on the legal issue in the Findings and Recommendations. Thus, more time

is needed. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff one extension of time of thirty days. As noted by

Defendants, Plaintiff’s In forma Pauperis Status has been revoked in prior cases filed in the

Eastern District. Moreover, it is clear from the record presented by Defendants that Plaintiff has

been on notice for some time of his status or potential status under 1915(g). Thus, Plaintiff’s

need for further research is somewhat suspect. Nevertheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff an

additional thirty days but no further time will be granted. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Time to pay the filing fee is DENIED as moot;

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file Objections is GRANTED. The

Objections are due within thirty days of the date of service of this Order. As

noted above, no further extensions of time will be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06001-AWI -GSA Document 151 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2