Adler v. Gonzalez, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER Extending Dispositive Motion Deadline Sixty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/13/2014.(Dispositive Motions filed by 10/17/2014) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRENT ADLER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

) 1:11cv01803 AWI DLB PC
)
)
) ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE
) MOTION DEADLINE SIXTY DAYS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Brent Adler (“Plaintiff”) is a former California state prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is

20

proceeding on Plaintiff’s October 28, 2011, complaint against Defendants Gonzalez, Zanchi,

21

Peterson, Cannon, Wallace, Foster, Karlow, Stanford, Sampson and Snyder for denial of access

22

to the courts in violation of the First Amendment.

23

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 22, 2014. By Findings and

24

Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the Court recommended that the motion

25

be granted.

26
27

However, Defendants’ motion only addressed two of the three instances of denial of
access to the courts alleged by Plaintiff in his complaint.

28
1

1
2
3
4

The Court’s January 18, 2013, screening order did not include an analysis of Plaintiff’s
claims. Rather, because there were no claims to dismiss, the Court simply found that Plaintiff
stated a First Amendment claim for denial of access to the courts and ordered Plaintiff to return
service documents.

5

Reviewing his complaint, there appear to be three instances where he alleges a denial.
6
7
8
9
10
11

While Defendants’ motion for summary judgment addressed two, it did not address Plaintiff’s
claim that he was denied access during the time a motion for reconsideration could have been
filed in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff alleges that this resulted in an untimely motion for
reconsideration. ECF No. 1, at 25-27.
Therefore, in light of the lack of specificity in the screening order, the Court finds that

12

permitting Defendants additional time to bring a pretrial dispositive motion on the remaining

13

third claim would be the best use of the Court’s and parties’ resources.

14

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants sixty (60) days from the date of service of

15

this order within which to bring a pretrial dispositive motion on the remaining access to courts

16

claim. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date of service of any

17

motion, and a reply, if any, will be due within fourteen (14) days.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 13, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2