Thaler v. Amador County, California et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/9/14 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 3 motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARSON RHODES THALER,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2013 MCE GGH PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

AMADOR COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a request for extension “for the Federal Complaint” already filed by

18

him. He states that because he is disabled, he requests leniency by the court in regard to

19

extensions of time in this case. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) The court is unable to discern why plaintiff

20

needs an extension of time. Because a complaint is already on file, and there are no other

21

pending matters for which an extension might be necessary at the present time, plaintiff’s request

22

will be denied as unnecessary.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s August 29, 2014 motion for an

24

extension of time (ECF No. 3) is denied as unnecessary.

25

Dated: September 9, 2014

26

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

27

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

GGH:076/Thaler2013.36