Opinion
1:20-cv-01427-NONE-BAM (PC)
09-20-2021
MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Plaintiff, v. MORENO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION AS A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND (ECF NO. 33)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Sedillo and Moreno for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment for the incident on October 21, 2018, for force used after the time Plaintiff lost consciousness.
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, together with a lodged second amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) Defendants filed an opposition on August 31, 2021. (ECF No. 32.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's filing of September 17, 2021, docketed as a Declaration. (ECF No. 33.) Upon review, the filing is a motion for thirty-day extension of time to file Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' opposition to his motion to file a second amended complaint. (Id.) The Court therefore construes the filing as a motion for extension of time and finds that a response from Defendants is not necessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
In his filing, Plaintiff states that he received Defendants opposition on September 1, 2021, and he is currently working on his response. Plaintiff states that he can only access the law library once a week for 2 hours, and he requests a thirty-day extension to finish his response. (ECF No. 33.)
Upon review of the motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of time. The Court further finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the brief extension granted here.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Declaration, (ECF No. 33), is construed as a motion for extension of time;
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 33), is GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is due within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.