1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SONYA BULLETTE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01519-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 13 v. TO A LIMITED EXTENT 14 WARDEN, (Doc. No. 10) 15 Defendant. OCTOBER 5, 2023 DEADLINE 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file a 18 response to the Court’s August 2, 2023 Screening Order. (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff requests an 19 extension of time because she has limited access to the law library and is obtaining help from a 20 “jailhouse lawyer.” (Id.). In support, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Jessica Hann who 21 purports to be a “jailhouse lawyer.” (Doc. No. 11). Ms. Hann attests that she is helping Plaintiff 22 prepare a first amended complaint but requires additional time to assist Plaintiff because she is 23 scheduled to undergo an unspecified surgery on an unspecified date. (Doc. No. 11). 24 The Court may grant an extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court 25 acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 6(b)(1)(A). The Court directed Plaintiff to deliver her response to the August 2, 2023 Screening 27 Order to correctional officials for mailing no later than September 5, 2023. (Doc. No. 9 at 9, ¶1). 28 Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Notably, Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this civil rights action 1 | and cannot be represented by a “jailhouse lawyer.” Medina v. Hedgpeth,

, at 2 | *9(C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2016) (holding a “jailhouse lawyer” could not represent the prisoner who 3 | was proceeding on a habeas corpus petition) (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 4 | F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1962)). This Court’s local rules also require that an individual who is 5 || appearing pro se, must appear personally and “‘may not delegate that duty to any other 6 | individual[.]” Local Rule 183. Thus, because Ms. Hann is not a licensed attorney nor is she a 7 | party to the instant action, the Court considers her declaration as submitted by Plaintiff only for 8 | purpose of supporting Plaintiff's request for additional time. See Storseth v. Spellman,

| 1349, 1355 (th Cir. 1981) Gailhouse lawyer may assist prisoner in preparing filing but pro se 10 | prisoner must file pleadings on their own behalf). 11 The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension of time but finds a request for a 12 || sixty-day extension to be excessive. To the extent that the correctional institution permits the use 13 | of jailhouse lawyers, Plaintiff does not explain why she cannot obtain assistance from another 14 | jailhouse lawyer. Further, Plaintiff does not provide a date for the surgery or how the nature of 15 || surgery warrants a sixty-day extension. Thus, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional thirty 16 | (30) day extension of time to comply with the Court’s August 2, 2023 Screening Order. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiffs motion (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED to the limited extent that Plaintiff shall 19 deliver her response to the Court’s August 2, 2023 Screening Order to correctional 20 officials for mailing no later than October 5, 2023. 21 2. Plaintiffs failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the undersigned 22 recommending that the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiffs failure to 23 comply with a court order and prosecute this action. ** | Dated: _ August 13, 2023 Wiha. Mh. Bareh fackte 25 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28