Gonzalez v. Adams et al

Filing 58

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND VACATING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM COURTS CALENDAR PENDING OBJECTION DEADLINE RE 29 , 43 , 44 , 57 signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/20/2013. (Filing Deadline: 5/23/2013). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

EVERETT GALINDO GONZALEZ,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01284-AWI-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OBJECTIONS AND VACATING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
FROM COURT’S CALENDAR PENDING
OBJECTION DEADLINE

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

(Docs. 29, 43, 44, and 57)
13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Everett Galindo Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

16

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 23, 2009. Pursuant to the third

17

screening order filed on March 12, 2012, this action for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third

18

amended complaint against Defendants Fisher, Giacomi, Norton, Watson, Dotson, Ruff, Roman,

19

Speer, Gardemal, Lunes, Rodriguez, and Espinosa (1) for revalidating Plaintiff in 2004 and then

20

again in 2006, and (2) rejecting him for inactive gang status and revalidating him in 2006/2007, all

21

without notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and the existence of some evidence with an

22

indicia of reliability, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

23

On February 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

24

recommending that Defendants’ three motions to dismiss, filed on July 9, 2012, October 25, 2012,

25

and November 7, 2012, be granted in part and denied in part. On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

26

motion seeking a sixty-day extension of time to file objections. Due to Plaintiff’s inability to

27

complete and file objections within the initial thirty-day period provided, the Court cannot yet rule

28

on the motions to dismiss.
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file objections is GRANTED;
and

4

2.

In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’ motions

5

to dismiss are DEEMED VACATED from the Court’s calendar until (1) Plaintiff

6

files objections and Defendants’ response, if any, is timely filed, or (2) the thirty-day

7

objection period expires without receipt of objections.1

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
9h0d30

March 20, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court’s action is purely administrative and the parties need take no further action. Once the objection
period is closed, the Court will issue its ruling on the motions to dismiss.

2