1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00682-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS 13 v. MOOT 14 RICHARD MILAN, (Doc. No. 99) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Fee Waiver” filed November 3, 2025. 18 (Doc. No. 99, “”Motion”). Therein, Plaintiff requests an extension of thirty (30) days to submit a 19 certified copy of his trust account statement in order that he be permitted to proceed on his appeal 20 without the prepayment of fees. (Id. at 2:15-16). The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as 21 seeking an extension of time.1 22 A review of the docket in Plaintiff’s appeal reflects that, on October 23, 2025, the Ninth 23 Circuit permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal in this case. Spencer v. 24 Milan, No. 25-6670 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025). Because the Ninth Circuit has already granted 25

26 1 A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns,

, 27 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.”

28 1 | Plaintiffs request to proceed without the prepayment of fees in his appeal, Plaintiff no longer 2 || requires an extension of time to submit his inmate trust account statement. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Fee Waiver (Doc. No. 99), construed as a motion for extension of 5 | time, is disregarded as MOOT. 6 Dated: _ November 17, 2025 Kobo Zh. fare Hack 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28