Fletcher Sherman Legardy v. Sunrise Mall Owner Group

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FLETCHER SHERMAN LEGARDY, No. 2:25-cv-2513 DJC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SUNRISE MALL OWNER GROUP, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff represented himself in this closed case, and accordingly the motion now before the court was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On January 5, 2026, plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to Prepare Typed Letter to Court regarding his request that the court return his filing fee. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff’s case was closed on December 8, 2025. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed after the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings.

23 Moreover, the court will not grant plaintiff an extension of time because the anticipated motion for a return of the filing fee is meritless. “Given that the filing fee covers the opening of a case, parties are not entitled to refunds of those filing fees when the case is dismissed at an early stage.” Edward Littlejohn v. Los Angeles County Superior Ct. et al., No. 2:24-CV-03840-JWH- //// //// || BFM, 2025 WL 3691437, at *1, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264102 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025). The | motion for an extension of time at ECF No. 10 is accordingly DENIED.

3 || DATED: January 7, 2026 ~ ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE