From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Godoy v. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 25, 2022
2:20-cv-1938 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1938 DAD KJN P

10-25-2022

KENNETH GODOY, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of time to file objections to the September 29, 2022, Findings and Recommendations. Defendant Bobbala objects that plaintiff was previously granted two sixty-day extensions of time to oppose the motion to dismiss, so plaintiff's request for a ninety day extension of time is “unreasonable and without good cause.” (ECF No. 58 at 1.)

In his request for more time, plaintiff cites no extenuating circumstances demonstrating a need for such a lengthy extension. Rather, plaintiff simply claims he “needs time to research” and “complete his response in time.” (ECF No. 57.) Therefore, plaintiff's motion is partially granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) is partially granted; and
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the September 29, 2022 findings and recommendations.


Summaries of

Godoy v. Son

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 25, 2022
2:20-cv-1938 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022)
Case details for

Godoy v. Son

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH GODOY, Plaintiff, v. M. SON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 25, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-1938 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022)