Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 212

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Firest Request for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court's 8/10/2015 Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 08/31/2015. (14-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM (PC)

v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ FIRST
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO THE COURT’S 8/10/15 ORDER
(ECF No. 206)

16
17
18
19

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

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently

21

proceeds against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for

23

conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of

24

the Eighth Amendment.

25

On August 10, 2015, the Court directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for an

26

order to show cause. (ECF No. 206.) As a result, Defendants’ response is currently due on

27

August 31, 2015. On August 31, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to

28
1

1

comply with the Court’s August 10, 2015 order. (ECF No. 211.) In support, Defense Counsel

2

submitted a declaration stating an additional fourteen days is needed to sufficiently review

3

Plaintiff’s motions and related filings and to prepare a response. (Id. at 2.) Defense Counsel

4

further explains that he was delayed in preparing a response to Plaintiff’s motion due to pressing

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

business in other matters, including preparing for a trial and filing dispositive motions in other
cases. (Id. at 2-3.)
The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions of time for Defendants to
comply with this Court’s August 10, 2015 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court further
finds that no response to this motion is necessary and thus it is deemed admitted, Local Rule
230(l), and that this short extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiff.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to comply with the Court’s August 10, 2015
order is GRANTED. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause is due
on or before fourteen days from the date of service of this order.

14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 31, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2