Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 55

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendant Brannum's Motion to Dismiss 54 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/19/16. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
BRANNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF NO. 54)

Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY HERRERA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2016, defendant Brannum filed a motion to

20

dismiss. (ECF No. 38). On September 1, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition

21

or a statement of non-opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss within thirty days

22

of the service of the order. (ECF No. 47). On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to

23

that order, stating that he never received a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss and

24

asking for a copy of the motion. (ECF No. 49). On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

25

motion requesting a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50). On

26

September 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a copy of defendant Brannum’s

27

motion to dismiss, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition or a statement of non-

28

opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 51). On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to
1

1

defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 52). On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed

2

what the Court construes as a motion to file a supplemental brief in opposition to defendant

3

Brannum’s motion to dismiss (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 54).

4

According to the Motion, Plaintiff requests the opportunity to file a supplemental brief

5

in opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss because, upon further research,

6

Plaintiff noticed that he did not brief a case that is relevant to the Court’s determination of the

7

motion to dismiss and that he briefed two cases that are not relevant. The Court finds good

8

cause to grant Plaintiff the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of the service of this order to file a

11

supplemental brief in opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to

12

dismiss;
2. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief must state whether it is an additional brief,

13
14

or whether it is intended to replace the prior opposition he filed; and

15

3. Defendant Brannum has seven days from the date of the service of the

16

supplemental brief to file a reply to the supplemental brief.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2