UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 17, 2008
WARREN BRAD JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
TIMOTHY WENNES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE [doc. #22]
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, moves for a 90-day continuance of this action so he may obtain legal counsel. Defendants object to a continuance contending that they have a motion to dismiss or alternatively for a more definite statement [doc. #5] pending that has been fully briefed and is ready for ruling. The Court notes that plaintiff, without the assistance of counsel, timely filed a 122 page response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. (See docket no.
Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8) in support of his motion. But this statutory section is applicable to criminal actions only and therefore, it is not relevant in this civil case.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend a specified deadline for good cause: "When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . .." FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). In the present case, there is no pending deadline to continue. Although plaintiff's response in opposition to defendants' motion was due on October 31, 2008, he filed his opposition early, on October 22, 2008. Defendants have filed their reply memorandum and therefore, the motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.
Because there is no current deadline, IT IS ORDERED plaintiff's motion for a continuance is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.