ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY EXTENSION TO FILE OPPOSITION SHOULD BE GRANTED

Re: Dkt. No. 21

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

Before the court is plaintiff James Fort's amended motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. 21. The motion was originally filed on Friday, January 11, 2019 (Dkt. 20), and it was amended on Tuesday, January 15, 2019 (Dkt. 21). Defendants have not filed an opposition, and the time for them to do so has expired. See Civ. L. R. 7-11(b). This motion is deemed submitted for determination. Civ. L. R. 7-11(c).

Plaintiff's motion explains that his counsel has had health-related issues and had been out of the office "for the past week due to said health reasons and seeks this continuance on this basis." Dkt. 21 at 1. The court understands from plaintiff's filings that counsel had been unable to work during the week of January 7 through January 11. Yet, plaintiff's deadline to file his opposition was December 31, 2018—the Monday of the previous week. As such, plaintiff's motion as filed offers no basis for this court to find that plaintiff "failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the court should extend the time for plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's showing of good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) must justify missing the actual filing deadline of December 31, 2018, following defendants' motion filed on December 17, 2018. Plaintiff's response to this order must be filed no later than January 31, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.