govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-03842-0

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 
1 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN JOSE DIVISION 
 
RASHAD LAMONE JONES, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED 
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 
TO FILE 
 
Re: ECF No. 28 
 
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file his opposition to the City of San Jose, San 
Jose Police Department, Officer Gifford, Officer Hoqoq, and the County of Santa Clara’s 
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the Second Amended 
Complaint (“SAC”). Mot., ECF No. 28. Defendants have opposed. Opp., ECF No. 29. For the 
reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS AS MODIFIED Plaintiff’s motion. 
I. BACKGROUND 
Plaintiff initially filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. While in state court, 
Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Serve Pleading. ECF No. 1-5 at 
9–10. Defendant the County of Santa Clara (“the County”) opposed. Id. at 15–18. The Superior 
Court granted the extension. 
Defendants then removed the action to this Court and filed their Motion to Dismiss and 
Motion to Strike. ECF No. 10, 12. On May 14, 2026, the parties stipulated to extend deadlines to 
respond. ECF No. 24. The Court granted the stipulation and entered an order adopting the 
parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Order Granting Stipulation to Extend Deadlines, ECF No. 26. 
On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff mailed his instant Motion, which was filed on June 1, 2026. 

 

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Mot. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that when an act “may or must be done 
within a specified time,” a court may extend that time for good cause “(A) with or without motion 
or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; 
or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable 
neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). 
Local Rule 6 also governs requests to enlarge or shorten time. Local Rule 6-1(b) states 
that “[a] request for a Court order enlarging or shortening time may be made by written stipulation 
pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 or motion pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3.” 
III. DISCUSSION 
Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on May 28, 2026. Order Granting Stipulation to Extend 
Deadlines. On May 28, however, Plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension. Mot. Plaintiff now 
states that he needs additional time “to research and complete his opposition.” Mot. at 2. 
Defendants argue that since Plaintiff’s motion was filed four days after the parties’ 
stipulated deadline, the Court should analyze Plaintiff’s request under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). Opp. at 4. 
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s motion was filed four days late. But in light of both the 
fact that Plaintiff mailed the motion on the day it was due and the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding 
pro se, the Court declines to analyze Plaintiff’s request under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). 
Defendants contend that even if the Court analyzes the motion under Rule 6(b)(1)(A), 
Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to merit a thirty-day extension. Here, the Court agrees 
that Plaintiff has not adequately articulated why he requires thirty additional days to prepare his 
opposition. Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 
extension of time to file. But because Plaintiff did not articulate why thirty days were necessary, 
the Court instead grants Plaintiff a twenty-five-day extension. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS AS MODIFIED Plaintiff’s Motion. 

 

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Plaintiff must file his opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by 
Monday, June 22, 2026. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 9, 2026 
 
 
EDWARD J. DAVILA 
United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight