Ric'e v. Russell

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 kee 4 PERCEY LEE RIC’E, Case No. 3:23-CV-00339-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEN 6 V. TIME 7 PERRY RUSSELL, et a/., [ECF No. 40] 8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Percey Lee Ric’e’s (“Ric’e”) motion for an extension of 10 | time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) Ric’e’s response is due on April 7, 2025. He requests an extension to May 21, 2025. (/d. at 2.) 12| Ric’e asserts that an extension of time is necessary because “Defendants have made 13} statements that are fabrications that the plaintiff can show with the records are indeed 14 | untruthful.” (/d.) 15 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) the court may, for good 16 | cause, extend time if a request is made before the original time expires. The good cause 17 | inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017). 19 Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that good cause exists to warrant 20 | granting an extension but finds that a 45-day extension is not warranted and instead will grant a 21-day extension. Accordingly, the motion, (ECF No. 40), is granted in part and 22 denied in part. McNair shall file his response to Defendants’ motion for summary 23 | judgment by no later than Monday, April 28, 2025. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: April 2, 2025 ‘ . 26 97 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28