Opinion
1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)
01-05-2023
ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Plaintiff, v. REYNALDO JASSO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR TWO-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY AS UNNECESSARY
(ECF NO. 43)
Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 14, 2022, Defendant Ochoa filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36.) Due to a defect in the Rand notice served on Plaintiff, Defendant re-filed the motion on November 17, 2022. (ECF No. 38.) On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 40.)
On December 14, 2022, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, along with a separate request for a two-day extension of time nunc pro tunc. (ECF No. 43.) On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' request for a two-day extension of time. (ECF No. 44.) Defendants submit that the reply to Plaintiff's opposition was due no more than 10 days after the opposition was filed pursuant to Local Rule 230(d). However, because this action was filed by a prisoner it is proceeding under Local Rule 230(1), and a reply is due no more than 14 days after the opposition is filed, i.e. December 15, 2022 (14 days after December 1, 2022). (ECF No. 3 at 5:7-8.) Accordingly, Defendants' reply was timely filed on December 14, 2022, and no request for extension of time is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.