ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

I. SUMMARY

Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. ("7-Eleven") filed a motion for summary judgment ("7-Eleven's Motion") on August 15, 2018. (ECF No. 31.) The Court informed Plaintiff that he would have through September 7, 2018 to file a response. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff has not yet filed a response; however, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to find a local attorney on September 4, 2018 ("Plaintiff's Motion"). (ECF No. 34.) 7-Eleven responded. (ECF No. 35.) For the following reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a motion to extend time to respond to 7-Eleven's Motion and grants Plaintiff's Motion. However, Plaintiff is advised that he is now proceeding pro se without the assistance of an attorney, and the Court will not grant further requests for extension of time to allow Plaintiff to retain an attorney.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The grant or denial of an extension of time is predicated on a showing of "good cause." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The sufficiency of this showing is committed to the discretion of the district court. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff first raised the issue of retaining counsel at a scheduling conference held on March 15, 2018. (ECF No. 25.) The Court thereafter ordered Plaintiff to retain counsel or file a notice that he would be proceeding pro se by April 23, 2018. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff did not comply with this order and instead requested an additional thirty days to retain counsel on June 7, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff then filed another request for an extension of time to retain counsel on September 4, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has not described his efforts to retain counsel and does not specify how much time he needs to retain counsel. Given that Plaintiff has been unable to retain counsel since at least March 15, 2018, and in the absence of any explanation of his efforts, the Court finds that Plaintiff is proceeding with his case pro se. As such, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's most recent motion to extend time (ECF No. 34) as a motion to extend time to respond to 7-Eleven's Motion. So construed, Plaintiff's motion will be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion to extend time (ECF No. 34) is granted nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff will have through and until October 18, 2018, to respond to 7-Eleven's motion for summary judgment.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's earlier motion to extend time (ECF No. 29) is denied as moot.