Hanserd v. Souder

Filing 11

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 9 Request for an Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS HANSERD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-13201
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
N. SOUDER,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #9)
On September 9, 2015, plaintiff Marcus Hanserd (“Plaintiff”), a state
prisoner at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, filed a pro se
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The complaint alleged that

defendant N. Souder, a registered nurse at the St. Louis facility, retaliated against
Plaintiff by charging him with prison misconduct for filing a grievance against
Souder. (Compl., ECF #1.)
On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. (Mot. to
Amend, ECF #5.) The Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge, who
struck the motion and the proposed amended complaint on October 26, 2015, for
failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1. (Order of Reference, ECF #6, and Order
Striking Mot. to Amend and Amended Compl., #8.) The magistrate judge stated in

his order that any objections to the order should be filed within fourteen days of
service of his order.
On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff wrote to the magistrate judge and requested
an extension of time to respond to the magistrate judge’s order (Letter, ECF #9),
and on December 4, 2015, the Court rescinded its order of reference to the
magistrate judge (Order, ECF #10). Plaintiff states in his letter to the magistrate
judge that his access to a law library is limited to three days a week and that he
needs additional time to file a proper response to the magistrate judge’s order.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), the Court may extend the
time to comply with a court deadline “for good cause.” Plaintiff has shown “good
cause” for extending the time to file a response to the magistrate judge’s order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an
extension of time (ECF #9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28)
days from the date of this order to file his response to the magistrate judge’s order.
Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the complaint.

/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 10, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 10, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3