Carr v. Cate et al

Filing 56

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion 54 and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/1/11. Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due Septemeber 6, 2011. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ORRIN CARR,

CASE NO.

1:08-cv-01931-LJO-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS’
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 54 & 55)

13

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE
/ SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

14
15
16

ORDER
17
Plaintiff Orrin Carr is a state prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2011, Defendants filed a
19
Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”). (ECF No. 48.) On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
20
motion entitled “Motion for Continuance of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment until
21
Discovery is Complete”. (ECF No. 54.) In it, Plaintiff states that he cannot complete his
22
opposition to Defendants’ MSJ without access to documents requested in discovery.
23
Plaintiff further states that Defendants are in possession of these documents. Plaintiff
24
states that “the Court has not yet made a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for production of
25
documents.” Plaintiff then requests an extension of time to file an opposition until after the
26
Court issues its order.
27
The Court has reviewed its record of actions and did not find any motions for
28

1

production of documents that the Court has not issued an order for. At this point, the only

2

motion pending is Defendants’ MSJ. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for a stay is denied.

3

Plaintiff also filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to File an Opposition to

4

Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff has presented good cause to the Court.

5

Thus, he is granted an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion.

6

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Continuance is DENIED;

8

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension is GRANTED;

9

3.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due

10

September 6, 2011; and

11
12

4.

No further extensions of time will be given.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
1j0bbc

August 1, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-