ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [ECF No. 21.]

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

Before this Court is pro se Plaintiff Thomas Matthews' motion "to set aside default judgment due to defendants failure to properly notice plaintiff of their filings/motions." (ECF No. 21.) For reasons articulated below, the Court will construe the motion as a motion for extension of time to file a response and grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

On August 31, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the hearing on Defendant County of San Diego's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) for November 9, 2018, and ordered that any response from Plaintiff Thomas Matthews was due no later than September 21, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file any response motions before September 21, 2018, and on October 5, 2018, Defendant filed a response urging the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff's present motion is submitted in opposition to Defendant's request for dismissal.

First, Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside "defendant's motion for default." Because Defendant has not moved for default, and because no default has been entered, the request is denied.

Second, Plaintiff states that his failure to file a timely response was attributable "to the defendants failure to properly notice him of the motions." (ECF No. 21, at 2.) Specifically, he points to the proof of service page submitted by Defendant, which were addressed to the Plaintiff at a zip code of 92120. Although Plaintiff contends that is not his correct address, his own complaint is the source of that erroneous zip code. (ECF No. 1, at 1). Plaintiff has indicated, by way of a handwritten note on his motion, that his correct zip code is 92019. (ECF No. 21, at 1.) The Clerk has updated Plaintiff's address for the docket. With the correct zip code on file, there is no need for the Court to order Defendant to alter its method of service.

Finally, Plaintiff has asked for a 30 day extension in which to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court will grant that request in recognition of Plaintiff's pro se status and excuse the tardy filing. Mindful, however, that an extension of 30 days would require a shifting of reply brief and motion hearing dates as well, the Court resets the calendar as follows. Plaintiff's new response brief deadline is November 19, 2018. Any reply from Defendant is due November 28, 2018. The new hearing date shall be December 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2D.

CONCLUSION

The Court denies all aspects of Plaintiff's motion except that which seeks a 30 day extension of time to file. Such motion is granted: Plaintiff must file a response brief, if any, no later than November 19, 2018. Any reply must be filed no later than November 28, 2018. The new hearing date is December 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.