(PC) Castro v. Covello

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/23/2024 DENYING 19 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has 30 days from 18 Order where the initial request was granted to file a First Amended Complaint. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH ANTHONY CASTRO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:23-cv-0694 DC AC P

v.

ORDER

COVELLO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On October 11, 2024, the court reassigned this case to a different district judge. ECF No.

17
18

15. This reassignment did not affect the magistrate judge assigned to this case.
That same day, the court received plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file a First

19
20

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. A few days later, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s

21

request for a 30-day extension to file a First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Apparently

22

unaware that the court had already granted plaintiff’s initial request, plaintiff mailed what the

23

court construes to be a duplicative motion for extension of time on October 17, 2024. ECF No.

24

19 (“I just received this notice that one of my pending cases has been reassigned. Due to this

25

change I feel it best to resend a request for a 30 day extension.”). Because this motion is

26

substantively duplicative of the recently granted request for 30-day extension, the court denies the

27

motion (ECF No. 19) as unnecessary, duplicative, and moot.

28

////

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 19) is denied; and

3

2. Plaintiff has thirty days after being served with the court order granting his initial

4

request for an extension (ECF No. 18) to file a First Amended Complaint.

5

DATED: October 23, 2024

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2