Moose Run, LLC v. Libric

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MOOSE RUN, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-01879-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF 9 v. REPLY

Defendant. 11

12 13 On July 16, 2019, defendant filed a request for an extension of time to file his 14 response to plaintiff's complaint;1 specifically, defendant sought an extension to October 15 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed opposition to such request. By order filed August 6, 2019, the 16 Court granted defendant's request in part, extending the deadline to September 20, 2019. 17 The Court is now in receipt of defendant's "Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to an 18 Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint," as well as a letter from defendant, dated 19 August 27, 2019, and received by the Clerk of Court on August 30, 2019, in which 20 defendant requests the Court "take into consideration" the reply. According to defendant, 21 he placed the reply in the mail on August 14, 2019, but it was erroneously returned to him 22 for insufficient postage.2 23

24 1The request was received by the Clerk of Court on July 24, 2019. As defendant is incarcerated and proceeds pro se, the request is deemed filed on the date it was given to 25 prison officials for mailing, which, in this instance, was July 16, 2019. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274-76 (1988) (holding document by pro se prisoner is deemed filed 26 on date such prisoner presents it to prison officials for mailing). 27 2The August 6 order was mailed to defendant that same day; apparently, 1 Defendant's request for consideration of the reply is hereby DENIED, as, under the 2 Local Rules of this District, upon the filing of a request for an extension of time, any 3 Opposition thereto must be filed within four days after receiving the motion, whereupon 4 the district court rules on the matter. See Civil L.R. 6-3. In other words, in the absence 5 of a request by the Court for additional briefing, no reply is allowed. See id. Moreover, 6 even if the Court were to consider the reply, defendant fails to show why he is unable to 7 file a response to the complaint on or before September 20, 2019." 9 10 Dated: September 11, 2019 - MAXINE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >The reply, as did the initial request, discusses evidence defendant states he, or 27 an attorney he intends to retain in the future, will need to obtain. As set forth in the Court's order of August 6, 2019, however, no evidence need be submitted in connection 28 with an answer to the complaint.