Price v. Cunningham et al

Filing 78

ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's Opposition To Order Granting Defendants' Motion For An Extension Of Time (ECF No. 74 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/19/2012. Plaintiff's request to reverse the order issued September 28, 2012, is HEREBY DENIED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

FRED PRICE,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00425-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO ORDER GRANTING
D E F E N D A N T S ’ M O T IO N F O R A N
EXTENSION OF TIME

v.
S. R. CUNNINGHAM, et al.,

(ECF No. 74)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Fred Price (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dispositive motions in this action were due

17

on October 1, 2012. (ECF No. 53.) On September 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for an

18

extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) On September 28, 2012,

19

the Magistrate Judge found good cause and granted Defendants motion and the dispositive motion

20

deadline was extended to October 8, 2012. (ECF No. 28.) On October 8, 2012, Defendants filed

21

a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 72.) On October 9, 2012, a deposition transcript and

22

Plaintiff’s opposition to the order extending the motion for summary judgment were filed. (ECF No.

23

74.)

24

Plaintiff objects to the order granting the extension of time because he was not granted an

25

opportunity to oppose the motion. Plaintiff states that Defendants have deceived the Court and had

26

sufficient time to file their motion for summary judgment prior to the dispositive motion deadline.

27

Plaintiff requests the order granting the extension of time be reversed.

28

Plaintiff does not set forth any facts to support his allegation that Defendants have attempted
1

1

to deceive the Court. Further, the dispositive motion deadline was October 1, 2012, and Plaintiff

2

is not prejudiced by the one week extension of time to allow Defendant Mullins, who was

3

unavailable prior to the dispositive motion deadline, to review the motion and sign pertinent

4

documents.

5

The Court has conducted a de novo review and finds that good cause existed to modify the

6

scheduling order. Plaintiff’s request to reverse the order issued September 28, 2012, is HEREBY

7

DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

October 19, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2