1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Justin G. Reedy, No. 2:24-cv-00649-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 El Dorado Superior Court, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Pro se plaintiff Justin Reedy moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 18 | ECF No. 30. The court previously granted Reedy an extension of time to file an affidavit and 19 | further information in support of his request. ECF No. 32. He has now done so. ECF No. 34. 20 | Having reviewed that filing, the court finds Reedy has satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule 21 | of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) and grants Reedy’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on 22 | appeal. 23 Reedy’s opposed motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 31) is granted in part to the 24 | extent this court has considered and granted his renewed and supplemented request for leave to 25 | proceed in forma pauperis. This court otherwise appears to lack jurisdiction to further extend the 26 | deadlines in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (“No extension 27 | under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date 28 | when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.”); Judgment, ECF No. 27

1 | (entered May 15, 2025); Order (June 27, 2025), ECF No. 29 (granting previous extension under 2 | Rule 4(a)(5) until July 7, 2025); Bowles v. Russell,

(2007) (“[T]he timely filing 3 | ofa notice of appeal ina civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | DATED: August 13, 2025. ot 6 = | Y¥ FV Baws STATES DISTRICT JUDGE