Puckett

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH PUCKETT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

13 v. COUNSEL AND EXTENSION OF TIME

14 JERRY DYER, et al., (Doc. No. 29)

15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 22, 2024, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. No. 29, 18 “Motion”). The Motion comprises one page and four sentences. In it, Plaintiff states he “need[s] 19 the appointment of counsel” and “feels that this maybe considerate [sic] to make this case . . . a 20 class action.”1 (Id. at 1). Although titled as seeking an extension of time, the Motion does not 21 identify for what Plaintiff seeks an extension of time. For the reasons set forth below, the 22 undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and extension of time. 23 First, Plaintiff states that he “need[s] the appointment of counsel” but does not otherwise 24 1 Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure…