(PC) Porter v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY JAMES PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
YANG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00311-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 13)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SERVICE AND COPIES
(ECF No. 14)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Larry James Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 15, 2025, the Court issued findings and recommendations that
recommended this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was directed to file any
objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days. (Id.)
On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file
his objections. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff asserts that he only became aware of the findings and
recommendations on December 20, 2025, and he never received the findings and

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
2
recommendations. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims the mailroom staff refused to give him his legal
mail and he has filed a grievance. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting that the Court (1)
confirm that his motion requesting an extension of time was filed, (2) provide defendants with a
copy of the motion; and (3) provide him a copy of the motion. (ECF No. 14.)
Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented good cause for
the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). However, Plaintiff’s request for service of
the motion on defendants and his request for a copy of the motion will be denied.
As to service of the motion, Defendants have not been served with the complaint and have
not appeared in this action, making service of the motion for an extension of time unnecessary.
As to the request for a copy of the motion, Plaintiff is reminded that the Clerk of the Court
does not ordinarily provide free copies of case documents to parties, even those proceeding in
forma pauperis. See Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863 (6th Cir. 1959.) Plaintiff is responsible for
maintaining his own records for this proceeding. Plaintiff is informed that the Clerk charges $0.50
per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). Copies of up to twenty pages may
be made by the Clerk’s Office at this Court upon written request, prepayment of the copy fees,
and submission of a large, self-addressed stamped envelope.
Based on the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the pending findings
and recommendations, (ECF No. 13), is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his objection
to the December 15, 2025 findings and recommendations within thirty (30) days from
the date of service of this order.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for service and copies of the motion for extension of time, (ECF No.
14), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE