ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." Dkt. #10. Plaintiff's one-page Motion reiterates recent action on the docket and requests a 30-day extension to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Id. Plaintiff provides no further detail or argument in favor of this extension. Plaintiff failed to note the instant Motion.

Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss was filed on March 31, 2017, and noted for consideration on May 5, 2017. Dkt. #6. This noting date was further out than required by local rule, providing additional time for Plaintiff. See LCR 7(d). The deadline for a response is currently May 1, 2017. LCR 7(d)(3).

"A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline." LCR 7(j). Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise." Id.

The Court finds that it can rule on the instant Motion without waiting for responsive briefing. Plaintiff fails to set forth any basis for granting relief from the deadline. Proceeding without an attorney is insufficient grounds for extension of deadlines without further explanation. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file this request in a timely fashion.

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Dkt. #10) is DENIED. Any response brief to Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss is due no later than May 1, 2017.