Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00481-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO WHEATLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT D. DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00481-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND EX PARTE REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AS MODIFIED

(Doc 29)

Plaintiff Ricardo Wheatley, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2023, after 

screening Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (SAC) and finding cognizable claims, the Court 

ordered service on Defendants. (Doc. 23). Defendants filed their waiver of service on October 

19, 2023, yielding their deadline to respond to the SAC on November 20, 2023. (Doc. 26).

On November 15, 2023, Defendants filed a request for 30-day extension of time within 

which to respond to the SAC. (Doc. 27). In support of the request, counsel for Defendants 

declared she was assigned to the case on September 28, 2023. Counsel declared that she had

begun a review of the case materials but required additional time prior to responding to the SAC 

to continue review of case materials, to research potential defenses, and to file a responsive 

pleading. Id. For those reasons, the Court found good cause and granted the request. (Doc. 28).

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ second request for an additional 30-day 

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 30 Filed 12/20/23 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

extension of time within which to respond to the SAC. (Doc. 29). The sole grounds advanced 

by counsel for Defendants for a further extension of time is that the “press of other business has 

prevented me from completing my full investigation into this matter and preparing a responsive 

pleading.” Id. ¶ 6. Counsel sets forth the other business to which she attended in four separate 

cases. Id. All of the cited litigation deadlines have passed and counsel cites no matters 

competing for her attention after December 15, 2023.

Defendants’ ex parte request was filed the day before their response to the SAC was due. 

In the Eastern District of California, requests for extensions of time are governed by Local Rule 

144, which requires counsel to seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court “as soon as 

the need for an extension becomes apparent.” L.R. 144(d). Based on counsel’s declaration, it 

should have become apparent before the day preceding the deadline to file Defendants’ response 

to the SAC that an extension was required.

Based on the forgoing, the Court finds good cause to grant a 21-day extension.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ ex 

parte motion for an extension of time to respond to the SAC (Doc. 29) is GRANTED IN PART. 

Defendants shall respond to the SAC by January 10, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00481-CDB Document 30 Filed 12/20/23 Page 2 of 2