(PC) Ayers v. California Correctional Institution

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on March 7, 2025. Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust and Second Screening Order, dated December 23, 2024, shall be delivered to correctional officers for mailing no later than April 21, 2025. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOBBY AYERS,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:24-cv-01301-HBK (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTE,
Defendant.

16
17
18

On December 23, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case

19

should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and advised Plaintiff of

20

the January 21, 2025 deadline to mail his response. (Doc. No. 10). On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff

21

filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time to file his response. (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff states

22

that the extension is necessary due to issues with accessing the prison’s law library. (Id.). The

23

docket indicates that Plaintiff was transferred to a new facility on or around January 21, 2025.

24

(Doc. No. 11).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides for extending deadlines for good cause

26

shown, if the request to extend time is made before the existing deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P.

27

6(b)(1)(A). If made after the time has expired, a party must also show excusable neglect. Fed. R.

28

Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here the Motion was made after the time expired and it does not explain why
1

1

he did not move before the time expired. The Court will presume that Plaintiff’s transfer

2

constitutes excusable neglect. The Court further finds Plaintiff’s pro se and incarcerated status

3

constitutes good cause exists to grant Plaintiff an extension of time. The Court, however, finds a

4

90-day extension excessive, but will grant a more limited 45-day extension.1

5

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

6

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART.

7

2. Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed

8

for Failure to Exhaust and Second Screening Order, dated December 23, 2024, shall

9

be delivered to correctional officers for mailing no later than April 21, 2025.

10

3. Absent further leave of the Court, Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this Order

11

and to file his response to the December 23, 2024 order to show cause within this

12

specified time will result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed, either as

13

a sanction for failure to comply with a court order or for failure to prosecute this

14

action consistent with Local Rule 110.

15
16

Dated:

March 7, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1

Inmates who have established court deadlines may apply for PLU status. Cal. Code of Regs. tit.
15, 3122(b). Inmates who are granted PLU status based on their application shall receive higher
priority to prison law library resources than other inmates. Id.
2