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)

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