(PS) Castaneda v. 6939 Fair Oaks Blvd TIC LLC

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
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHERRISH CASTANEDA,
Plaintiff,
v.
6939 FAIR OAKS BLVD TIC LLC,
Defendant.
No. 2:25-cv-02804-TLN-SCR
ORDER
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff, in the month of December, has
filed five motions and a second amended complaint (“SAC”). This order addresses Plaintiff’s
two motions for extension of time and motion to e-file. ECF Nos. 12, 15, & 17. The Court will
screen the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and address the two motions for temporary
restraining order in due course.
I. 	Extensions of Time
Plaintiff previously sought an extension of time to file the SAC, which the Court granted,
allowing her until December 9, 2025. ECF No. 11. On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
second request for extension of time, seeking three additional days to file. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff
timely sought this extension and made a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The

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
motion (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The SAC is timely filed, and the Court will screen it
pursuant to § 1915(e) in a subsequent order.
On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 14-day extension of time to object to
this Court’s Findings and Recommendations (F&R) which were issued on October 24, 2025. The
F&R allowed Plaintiff 30-days to object to the F&R. ECF No. 8 at 11. With three additional
days for service by mail, the objections were due no later than November 26, 2025. By allowing
Plaintiff 30-days, the Court already allowed Plaintiff much more time than the default 14 days for
objections provided by Local Rule 304(b). Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time was filed 33
days after the deadline expired. A motion made after the time has expired must demonstrate
excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The Court does not find the motion demonstrates
excusable neglect. Prior to filing the motion for extension, Plaintiff filed five other motions,
including two other motions for extension of time to amend her complaint, a second motion for
TRO, and a third “supplemental” motion for TRO with over 100 pages of exhibits. Thus,
Plaintiff made the decision to file two additional motions for TRO rather than objecting to the
F&R that recommended denial of the first motion for TRO. The motion for extension of time to
file objections (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
II. 	Motion to E-File
Plaintiff also filed a motion for permission to file documents electronically through the
Court’s CM/ECF system. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff’s motion states that she requests “permission to
file documents by paper, and/or” to use paper and electronic filing. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s motion
states she needs this accommodation in part due to asthma and anxiety. Id. Plaintiff also states
her disabilities “materially impair her ability to consistently comply with electronic filing
requirements under time pressure.” Id. Plaintiff is not required to file electronically, and is
already allowed to file documents in paper format. Plaintiff has been filing documents in paper,
and in the three months this case has been pending, has filed two complaints and eight motions.
The Court’s local rules provide that “any person appearing pro se may not utilize
electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge”. LR
133(b)(2). This Court’s local rule recognizes, as do similar local rules in other Districts, the

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
3
difficulties that can ensue for both pro se litigants and Court staff when pro se litigants attempt to
use e-filing. See, e.g., Baker v. IC Sys., Inc., No. CV-08-8091-PCT-DGC, 2008 WL 4186166, at
1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2008) (denying motion to e-file and stating the “Court’s policy is to require
pro se litigants to submit documents in paper form so that the Clerk’s Office can insure that the
documents are properly filed”). Additionally, Plaintiff is demonstrating a propensity for filing a
large volume of documents, including somewhat redundant motions such as the three motions for
TRO. Voluminous filings signal to the Court the potential for abuse if electronic filing is
permitted. Plaintiff’s request for electronic case filing does not present good cause for deviance
from the Local Rules. The request to participate in electronic case filing is DENIED.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file her second amended complaint (ECF
No. 12) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the F&R (ECF No. 17)
is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to e-file (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
4. The Court will issue a subsequent order which screens the SAC and addresses the two
pending motions for TRO.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 31, 2025.