Macias v. CCADC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PETER JOHN MACIAS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civ. No. 25-166 MIS/SCY
CURRY COUNTY et al.
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
Plaintiff timely seeks an extension of time to serve the additional Defendants named in
his third amended complaint. Doc. 69. Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, officers of
the Court must serve Defendants with process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). For the reasons
below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request as it is unopposed and for good cause.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff—still represented by counsel—filed his third amended
complaint, adding several Defendants. Doc. 49. On February 26, 2026, counsel filed his motion
to withdraw. Doc. 52. One day later, counsel filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Stay Proceedings,”
seeking a thirty-day stay so Plaintiff could obtain new counsel or proceed pro se. Doc. 53 at 1-2.
The Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and motion to stay on March 18, 2026,
staying the matter until April 21, 2026, when the parties had a previously scheduled status
conference. Docs. 59, 46. At the status conference on April 21, the Court discussed resetting
scheduling deadlines with the parties, given the addition of the new Defendants. Doc. 67.
Because Plaintiff had advised of an upcoming medical procedure (Doc. 64), the Court set a
deadline of May 22, 2026, for Plaintiff to move to extend the service deadline on the new
Defendants. Doc. 67. Plaintiff thereafter timely filed his motion to extend. Doc. 69.
Case 1:25-cv-00166-MIS-SCY Document 74 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to extend the service deadline for the newly added
Defendants. First, the motion is unopposed. Under D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b), “[t]he failure of a
party to file and serve a response in opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing
so constitutes consent to grant the motion.” Because Defendants file no response, and their time
to do so has expired, Plaintiff’s motion is deemed unopposed.
Second, Plaintiff demonstrates good cause for an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), a court may extend a deadline for good cause if the request is made before
the original deadline or any previously granted extension expires. Moreover, “an application for
extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) [] will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part
of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Wright & Miller, 4B FEDERAL
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1165 (4th ed.).
The record reflects that Plaintiff timely informed the Court and Defendants that he had an
ongoing serious medical condition and a surgery scheduled for April 23, 2026, and requested
reasonable accommodation within the service period for the operative complaint. Doc. 61.
Although service on the newly added Defendants was originally due by April 9, 2026, Plaintiff’s
counsel sought withdrawal in February, creating additional complications. After this Court
granted counsel’s request to withdraw, Plaintiff notified the Court six days later of his medical
condition and upcoming surgery, still within the service period. At that time, the Court also
stayed the case until April 21, 2026, and permitted Plaintiff to file a motion to extend the service
deadline by May 22, 2026, which he timely did. Doc. 69. Accordingly, Plaintiff consistently
communicated with the Court and Defendants regarding the circumstances that prevented timely
service.
Case 1:25-cv-00166-MIS-SCY Document 74 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff timely sought relief, has shown good cause, and there is no indication
of bad faith or prejudice, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service
(Doc. 69).
Additionally, because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court shall serve the
unserved Defendants. In order to affect service, by Thursday, July 9, 2026, Plaintiff shall
provide to the Court the service addresses for the unserved Defendants, Mark Gallegos,
Christopher Moreno, Taber Stanfield, and FNU Cordova.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00166-MIS-SCY Document 74 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 3