Moore v. Hatton et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS UNNECESSARY by Judge Beth Labson Freeman denying as unnecessary 35 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JOHNNY ANDREW MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

Case No. 17-03696 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AS
UNNECESSARY

S. HATTON, et al.,
Defendants.
(Docket No. 35)

17
18

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983, against officials at the California Training Facility. Dkt. No. 1. On

20

June 26, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered judgment the

21

same day. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of

22

time, asserting that he received a “civil motion response to this civil complaint on July 17,

23

2020.” Dkt. No. 35 at 1. Plaintiff asserts that he sent some documents to this Court on

24

April 1, 2020. Id. at 2. However, there was no activity on the docket for this case during

25

April or May 2020. The Court can only surmise that Plaintiff is confusing this closed

26

matter with another action filed as Moore v. Hatton, et al., Case No. 20-1445 BLF (PR).

27

In that case, the Court screened the complaint which was removed to this Court by

28

Defendants, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on July 7, 2020. Id.; Dkt.

1

No. 7. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking an extension of time in that case, he must

2

refile a new motion into that matter and reference the correct case number. He may

3

explain therein his confusion with this closed action as good cause for the late request.

4
5

Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time filed in this matter is DENIED as
unnecessary since there are no pending matters in this closed action.

6

This order terminates Docket No. 35.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: __August 10, 2020________

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Order Denying Motion as Unnecessary
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\03696Moore_motion

26
27
28

2