(PC) Alexander v. Aranda, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 13 Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Extend Nunc Pro Tunc Time to File a Responsive Pleading, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on July 3, 2024. Defendants shall have until July 22, 2024, to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JULIAN J. ALEXANDER, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ARANDA, et al., 12 Case No. 1:24-cv-00212-CDB (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND NUNC PRO TUNC TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING (Doc. 13) Defendants. 13 14 On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff Julian J. Alexander (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with 15 the filing of a complaint against Defendants Aranda, Ortega, and Guerro (“Defendants”). (Doc. 16 1). On March 26, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it stated a cognizable 17 claim for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and negligence 18 against all Defendant and directed service of the complaint. (Doc. 8). Defendants filed a notice 19 of intent to waive service on April 30, 2024. (Doc. 10). 20 21 On July 1, 2024 – the date Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s complaint was due – Defendants filed a motion for 21-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 13). 22 In the Eastern District of California, “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on 23 the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” Local 24 Rule 144(d). Instead, counsel are directed to “seek to obtain a necessary extension from the 25 Court … as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” Id. 26 While the Court finds good cause to grant the Defendants’ request, here, given counsel for 27 Defendants’ proffered bases for the extension – that counsel’s investigation is incomplete – it 28 should have become apparent to Defendants that they required an extension of time to file a 1 responsive pleading well before their response was due. The Court disfavors granting relief nunc 2 pro tunc and admonishes Defendants to exercise better care and to adhere to this Court’s Local 3 Rules in all future filings. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, Defendants shall have until July 22, 2024, to 5 respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: July 3, 2024 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?