Whether a pro se litigant facing financial hardship can obtain an extension of time to comply with Supreme Court filing requirements after denial of in forma pauperis status

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY DOCKETING FEE AND FILE PETITION IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 33.1 (Sup. Ct. R. 13.5; R. 30.3) To the Honorable Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit): Petitioner John De Light, proceeding pro se, respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s docket entry dated January 12, 2026, which provides: “The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 2, 2026, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.” 1. Relief requested. Petitioner requests a 60-day extension, extending the current deadline of February 2, 2026 to April 3, 2026, to: (1) pay the Rule 38(a) docketing fee; and (2) submit the petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. Timeliness of this application. This application is submitted more than 10 days before the February 2, 2026 deadline and is made pursuant to Rules 13.5 and 30.3. Good cause. Good cause exists because: a. IFP denial requires paid-case compliance and substantial printing/logistics. After denial of in forma pauperis status, Petitioner must re-submit in compliance with Rule 33.1 (booklet-format requirements and the number of copies required), creating significant production and shipping burdens for a pro se litigant. b. Immediate financial hardship; funds pending. Petitioner has been granted unemployment benefits in lowa, but payments have not yet been received. Petitioner needs additional time to obtain funds necessary to pay the docketing fee and to cover the printing and delivery costs required for Rule 33.1 compliance. c. Conflicting mandatory deadlines in state appellate proceedings. Since the Court’s January 12, 2026 entry, Petitioner has been required to meet imminent, court-imposed deadlines in related California Court of Appeal matters, substantially limiting the time available to reformat, print, and re-submit the petition in paid-case form. Position of respondents. Petitioner sent an electronic request to Respondents requesting stipulation for this motion, but as of the day and time of the filing of this petition, Petitioner has not received respondents’ position on this request. Petitioner is serving this application on respondents or their counsel of record. Petitioner submits this application in good faith and not for delay. Denial would materially impair Petitioner’s ability to comply with the Court’s paid-case requirements within the current period. Dated: January 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, for dbs at John De Light Petitioner, Pro Se P.O. Box 1270 Moreno Valley, CA 92556 (949) 614-3672 johndelight1 @gmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 23, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Application for Extension of Time on each respondent or counsel for respondent at the addresses below by [U.S. Mail, first-class] / [Priority Mail] / [FedEx], postage prepaid: 1, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (Clerk) P.O. Box 431 — Appeals Riverside, CA 92502 2. Laura De Light 1764 Highway T38N #30 Grinnell, [A 50112 3. Jacquelyn Young, Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 4. Ricardo Enriquez, Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244 5. Lalso mailed a copy to: Clerk of the Court Attn: Justice Elena Kagan (Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit) Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 Dated: January 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, fehe dels Ad John De Light Petitioner, Pro Se P.O. Box 1270 Moreno Valley, CA 92556 (949) 614-3672 johndelight1 @gmail.com