1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 * * *

6 CAMERON CHURCH, Case No. 3:19-cv-00677-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER

8 v.

9 WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 On November 18, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an inmate account 14 statement for the past six months with his application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 15 the full $400 filing fee by December 18, 2019. (ECF No. 3 at 2). In that order, the Court 16 informed Plaintiff that it would dismiss the case, without prejudice, if he failed to timely 17 comply with the order. (Id.) The Court dismissed this case on December 31, 2019 18 because Plaintiff failed to comply with that order and file an inmate account statement for 19 the past six months, pay the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 20 (ECF Nos. 6, 7). The Court’s dismissal was without prejudice, which meant that Plaintiff 21 was free to file a new complaint and fully complete application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis in a new case. 23 On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in 24 this case, not a new case. (ECF No. 8). Therefore, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s 25 application at ECF No. 8 as a motion for an extension of time to comply with this Court’s 26 November 18, 2019 order. 27 Pursuant to Nevada Local Rule of Practice IA 6-1(a), a request for an extension of 28 time made after the expiration of the specified period “will not be granted unless the movant or attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline expired was the result of excusable neglect.” “[E]xcusable neglect” is an equitable question for the court, considering “all relevant circumstances surrounding the □□□□□□□ 4) omission.” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino,

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 5 | Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,

(1993)). 6 | Courts use the following factors to determine whether a party’s omission should be 7 | considered excusable neglect: the danger of prejudice to the other party; the length and impact of the delay on judicial proceedings; the reason for delay and whether it was reasonably within the party’s control; and whether the party acted in good faith. /d. 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his failure to file a motion 11 | for an extension of time before the December 18, 2019 deadline was the result of excusable neglect. Plaintiff provides no explanation for why he waited until after the Court 13 | dismissed this action and closed the case to file his motion for an extension of time and file his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the Defendants have not been 15 | served and the danger of prejudice by the delay is low, the Court cannot find that □□□□□□□□□□□ 16 | failure to timely file a motion for an extension of time was excusable neglect where Plaintiff has not provided any reason for the delay. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Plaintiff may file a new complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, including the required financial documents, in a new case. 21 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is construed as a motion for extension of time. The motion 23 | for extension of time (ECF No. 8) is denied. 24 DATED THIS 10° day of January 2020. 26 {SQ 26 WRANDA M-DU—— 57 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

-2-