Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA SANDRA TOCCI, 4 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01302-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 5 ORDER v. 6 [Docket No. 34] CORECIVIC, INC., et al., Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Wyatt Peterson’s motion for an extension of time.

Docket No. 34. Defendant seeks a ruling from the Court providing extensions for all filing and serving deadlines in the instant case. /d. at 1.

1] “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. . ..” Livkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Johnson vy.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). The Court can grant extensions for deadlines for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Local Rule JA 6-1(a). Both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require a subject deadline to be identified in request for an extension of time, as well as a specific showing regarding the need for extension.

See id. Defendant identifies no particular deadline from which he seeks relief. See Docket No. 34.

While the Court has “an obligation to give liberal construction to the filings of pro se litigants,” Blaisdel v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), Defendant must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, (9th Cir. 1997) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion, Docket No. 34, is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2022 3g United States. Magistrate Judge