(PC) John E. Mitchell v. Baeza ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00857-NODJ-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 13 v. OF TIME 14 H. BAEZA, et al., (Doc. No. 37) 15 Defendants. MARCH 25, 2024 DEADLINE 16 17 On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Request for a Stay of Proceedings.” 18 (Doc. No. 37). In his pleading, Plaintiff asserts that he is in discussions with an attorney to 19 represent him in this matter and two other cases1 and needs additional time to finalize 20 representation. (Id. at 1-2). 21 On January 18, 2024, the Court issued a second screening order in this case, finding that 22 Plaintiff’s SAC states several cognizable federal claims, and directing Plaintiff to either 23 voluntarily dismiss the remaining claims or stand on his SAC subject to the undersigned 24 recommending dismissal of certain claims. (See Doc. No. 36, “Screening Order”). The 25 Screening Order directed Plaintiff to submit his response to correctional officials for mailing no 26 later than March 4, 2024. (Id. at 29-30). While Plaintiff styles his Motion as a Request for Stay 27 1 To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief in the other two cases cited in the Motion, he must file an appropriate 28 motion in each of those cases. ee EE IO III OSI EE 1 | of Proceedings, because the only pending matter in this case is Plaintiffs response to the 2 | Screening Order, the Court construes the Motion as a motion for extension of time to response to 3 | the January 18, 2024 Screening Order.” See, e.g., Bell v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 2020 WL 8834781, 4 | at *1 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2020) (construing motion for stay as motion for extension of time); see 5 | also Garces v. Pickett, 2021 WL 978540, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021) (same). Thus, the 6 | Court construes the pleading as motion for extension of time to file a response to the Court’s 7 | January 18, 2024 Screening Order. 8 The Court may grant an extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court 9 | acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 | 6(b)(1)(A). Here, the Court finds good cause to grant the Motion, given that Plaintiff appears to 11 | be in the final stages of securing counsel and should be permitted to consult with counsel before 12 | filing a response to the Screening Order. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. Defendant’s construed motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 37) is GRANTED. 15 2. Plaintiff shall deliver a response to the Court’s January 18, 2024 Screening Order to 16 correctional officials for mailing no later than March 25, 2024; alternatively, by this 17 same date counsel may enter a notice of appearance and file such a response. 18 3. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek a further extension of time 19 to comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiffs 20 failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action. 21 | Dated: _ January 24, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 □□ 2 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 27 || (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n y. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm‘ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the 28 | relief requested.” Jd.