Arline v. Clark

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING 76 Defendant's Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/23/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR.,

CASE NO.

1:07-cv-01097-LJO-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

10
v.
11

(ECF No. 76)
KEN CLARK,

12
Defendant.
13
/
14
15

ORDER

16

Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

17

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 18, 2011,

18

Defendant filed a Motion to Modify Scheduling Order requesting a nunc pro tunc extension

19

of the May 16, 2011 dispositive motions deadline and that the Motion for Summary

20

Judgment (amended), filed May 19, 2011, be accepted by the Court. (ECF No. 76 & 79.)

21

Defendant states that the “amended” Motion for Summary Judgment merely corrects an

22

error, which was pointed out by Plaintiff on May 18, 2011. In the Motion for Summary

23

Judgment filed May 6, 2011 (ECF No. 70), Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim was

24

erroneously referred to as an Eighth Amendment retaliation claim. (Id.)

25

The dispositive motions deadline was May 16, 2011. (ECF No. 52.) Defendant filed

26

his Motion for Summary Judgment on May 6, 2011. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff pointed out in

27

the error in a filing he made on May 18, 2011. (ECF No. 75.) On the same day, Defendant

28

1

filed this motion and an “amended” Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (ECF No. 76 & 77.)

2

For good cause shown, Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order is

3

GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed May 19, 2011 (ECF No. 79)

4

is accepted as timely.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
1j0bbc

May 23, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant’s sim ultaneously filed “Am ended” Motion for Sum m ary Judgm ent was rejected by the
Clerk one day after filing, May 19, 2011. (ECF No. 78.) Defendant refiled the pleading on May 19, 2011.
(ECF No. 79.)

-2-