Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles
Defendant
Andy Gomez
Plaintiff
Gonzalez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALEZ and CHARLES, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22 -cv-00977-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO LIMITED EXTENT

(Doc. No. 10)

 OCTOBER 2, 2023 DEADLINE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of time filed on 

August 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the 

Court’s June 23, 2023 screening order because he was “unexpectedly transferred from Calipatria 

State Prison to R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility,” he did not receive his legal materials until 

July 22, 2023, and he needs more time to conduct research. (Id.) 

The Court may grant an extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court 

acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(A). The undersigned previously ordered Plaintiff to deliver to correctional officials for 

mailing his response to the Court’s June 23, 2023 screening order no later no later than August

25, 2023. (Doc. No. 9 at 2 ¶ 2). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is timely. The Court finds good cause 

to grant Plaintiff an extension of time but finds an additional forty-five (45) day extension of time 

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 11 Filed 09/01/23 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

excessive. Notably, per a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff, he was transferred to RJ 

Donovan Correctional Facility on January 5, 2023, which is far removed in time from the date of 

this Order. (Doc. No. 6). And the Court already granted Plaintiff a previous extension of time.

(Doc. No.9). Nevertheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension of time. Plaintiff is 

granted a further thirty (30) day extension to file his response to the Court’s June 23, 2023 

screening order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED to the limited 

extent that that Plaintiff must deliver his response to the Court’s June 23, 2023 

screening order to correctional officials for mailing no later than October 2, 2023. 

2. If Plaintiff fails to timely file his response to the screening order, despite this extension 

of time, the undersigned will recommend the district court dismiss this case for 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and comply with a court order. 

Dated: September 1, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 11 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 2