Smith v. Green

Filing 27

ORDER Granting Defendants' 25 Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc; ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 26 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/5/11. Response Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00600-AWI-DLB PC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC (DOC. 25) v. SGT. GREEN, et al., 12 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 26) Defendants. 13 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Michael Lenoir Smith is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on 18 his amended complaint against Defendants Green, Lee, and Navarro for retaliation in violation of 19 the First Amendment. Pending before the Court are 1) Defendants’ motion for an extension of 20 time to respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April 22, 2011, and 2) Defendants’ 21 motion to dismiss, filed May 10, 2011. Docs. 25, 26. 22 I. 23 Motion For Extension Of Time Defendants moved for a fifteen day extension of time to file a responsive pleading, up to 24 and including May 10, 2011. Defendants requested this extension because they anticipated filing 25 a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants were waiting for 26 the relevant inmate appeals from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 27 (“CDCR”). Defendants subsequently filed their motion to dismiss. 28 Good cause is required for an extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Good cause 1 1 appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file a 2 responsive pleading is granted nunc pro tunc. 3 II. 4 Motion To Dismiss Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed on May 10, 2011. As of the date of this order, 5 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to this action, as required by 6 Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to file a response to 7 Defendants’ motion to dismiss within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. 8 Failure to comply with this order will result in waiver of the opportunity to file an opposition. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 5, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?