ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending is plaintiff's motion for a thirty day extension of his time to reply in support of his motion to compel. ECF No. 57.

Defendant Sagireddy's response to plaintiff's motion to compel was filed on June 25, 2015, and served on plaintiff the same day. ECF No. 56 at 11. Plaintiff had ten days1 to file a reply. ECF No. 55. On July 9, 2015,2 plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge his time to file a reply. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff's motion for extension was filed after the deadline to file a reply and is therefore untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff's motion does not offer any explanation as to why it is untimely and, more importantly, fails to identify any good cause for extending the deadline. ECF No. 57. The motion simply requests, without any explanation, an additional thirty days to reply. Id. The court will not grant a motion for additional time that offers no explanation for the requested extension. If plaintiff seeks additional time to file a reply, he must file a motion that establishes excusable neglect for his untimely motion to enlarge and good cause for granting the extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to extend his deadline to file a reply in support of his motion to compel (ECF No. 57) is denied.

2. If plaintiff still seeks additional time to file a reply, within seven days of the filing of this order he may file another motion for extension that establishes excusable neglect for the untimely motion and good cause for granting the extension.