Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 136

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 135 Third Motion for Extension of Time to File His Reply; ORDER VACATING April 28, 2014 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reopening Discovery (Doc. 134 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/29/2014. Deadline: May 16, 2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.
P. GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
HIS REPLY
(ECF No. 135)
ORDER VACATING APRIL 28, 2014 ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
REOPENING DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 134)
Deadline: May 16, 2014

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

22

Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment; and against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of

24

the Eighth Amendment and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

25

On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 113.)

26

On January 27, 2014, the Court directed Defendants to file an opposition, or statement of non-

27

opposition, to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 122.) Following extensions of time, Defendants filed their

28
1

1

opposition on March 3, 2014. Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff a ten-day extension of time to

2

file his reply. (ECF No. 130.)
On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend time to file his reply to

3
4

Defendants’ opposition. Plaintiff explained that he required additional time to access the law library,

5

conduct research and prepare a reply. Plaintiff asserted that he was limited to two to three hours of

6

law library access per week. (ECF No. 131.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of

7

time, and Plaintiff’s reply was due on or before April 22, 2014. (ECF No. 132.)
After receiving no reply, on April 28, 2014, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s

8
9

motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 134.) On the same date, however, Plaintiff’s third motion for

10

extension of time to reply to Defendants’ opposition was entered onto the Court’s docket. The motion

11

contained a proof of service dated April 22, 2014, which is timely under the mailbox rule. Douglas v.

12

Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2009). The motion was received on April 25, 2014, but not

13

entered onto the Court’s docket until April 28, 2014, after issuance of the order denying Plaintiff’s

14

motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 135.) In other words, the Court issued its order denying the

15

motion prior to receiving notification of Plaintiff’s request for additional time to reply. The Court now

16

considers Plaintiff’s request.

17

In that request, Plaintiff contends that he has been unable to access the law library since March

18

2014 and he seeks an additional twenty-four (24) days to complete his research. Plaintiff believes that

19

his request for law library access has been resolved and he will now be given access. (ECF No. 135.)

20

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and finds good cause for the brief

21

extension of time. As a result, the Court will vacate its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reopen

22

discovery and will grant Plaintiff’s motion for a twenty-four day extension of time. However, Plaintiff

23

is cautioned that no further extensions of time shall be granted absent a demonstrated showing of good

24

cause.

25

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

26

1. The Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for order reopening discovery, issued on

27

April 28, 2014, is VACATED;

28
2

1

2. Plaintiff’s third motion for an extension of time of 24-days to file his reply to Defendants’
response, filed on April 25, 2014, is GRANTED;

2
3

3. Plaintiff shall serve and file his reply to Defendants’ opposition to the motion to reopen
discovery on or before May 16, 2014;

4
5

4. No further extensions of time shall be granted absent a demonstrated showing of good
cause.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 29, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3