(PC) Papazian v. Doerer

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Reconsideration 13 , 15 signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 3/10/2025. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. Nos. 13, 15)

J. DOERER,

15

Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-HBK (PC)

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds

19

pro se in this civil action on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 4). On February 28, 2024,

20

Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s December 20, 2024 Order to Show Cause (Doc. No. 14)

21

along with three motions: a motion for class certification1 (Doc. No. 12); a motion for extension

22

of time (Doc. No. 13); and a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 15).
Plaintiff seeks a “standing” 90-day extension of time for “anything filed in this case.”

23
24

(Doc. No. 13). Currently, there are no pending deadlines in this case. Thus, a standing 90-day

25

extension of time for all deadlines is unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court does not give

26

“standing” 90-day extensions of time. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides for

27

extending deadlines for good cause shown, if the request to extend time is made before the

28

1

The Court will address Plaintiff’s motion for class certification by separate order.

1

existing deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). If made after the time has expired, a party must

2

also show excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). To the extent that Plaintiff is unable to

3

comply with a court-ordered deadline, he may move for an appropriate extension of time

4

explaining the reason needed for the extension, as appropriate. Indeed, Plaintiff previously

5

requested, and was granted, an extension of time to respond to a Court Order. (See Doc. Nos. 8,

6

9).
Plaintiff also requests the Court to “reconsider any court orders or rulings in this case until

7
8

it receives Plaintiff’s responses.” (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff has timely responded to the Court’s

9

December 20, 2024 Order. (Doc. No. 14). At this time, there are no orders or rulings to

10

reconsider. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is unnecessary.

11

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

12

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED.

13

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED as unnecessary.

14
15
16

Dated:

March 10, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2