Dasenbrock v. Kings County et al

Filing 260

ORDER GRANTING Defendant Adair's Motion for Extension of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc 229 ; ORDER DEEMING Defendant Adair's Motion for Summary Judgment Timely Filed on April 14, 2017 224 ; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc 233 ; ORDER DEEMING Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Timely Filed on May 30, 2017 238 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/28/17: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBIN DASENBROCK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:11-cv-01884-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
ADAIR’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME, NUNC PRO TUNC
(ECF No. 229.)

A. ENENMOH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT
ADAIR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TIMELY FILED ON
APRIL 14, 2017
(ECF No. 224.)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME,
NUNC PRO TUNC
(ECF No. 233.)

18
19
20

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TIMELY FILED ON MAY 30, 2017
(ECF No. 238.)

21
22
23

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANT ADAIR TO FILE REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION

24
25
26

I.

BACKGROUND

27

Robin Dasenbrock (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

28

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
1

1

action on November 14, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second

2

Amended Complaint filed on September 8, 2015, against defendants Dr. A. Enenmoh,

3

Correctional Officer Perez-Hernandez,1 Nurse Page, and Nurse Adair, on Plaintiff’s claims for

4

violation of the Eighth Amendment and related negligence. (ECF No. 140.)

5

On May 5, 2017, Defendant Adair (“Defendant”) requested an extension of time to file

6

her motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 229.) On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice

7

of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for extension of time and requested an extension of

8

time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 256.)

9

II.

DISCUSSION

10

Defendant Adair seeks an extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming her motion for

11

summary judgment, filed on April 14, 2017, timely filed. Defendant Adair concedes that her

12

motion for summary judgment was untimely because it was filed after the court’s deadline of

13

December 21, 2016, due to excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).

14

Defendant has no objection to allowing additional time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion

15

for summary judgment.

16

Plaintiff responds that he will not oppose any reasonable request for an extension of

17

time by Defendant to file her motion for summary judgment. In fact, Plaintiff requests that the

18

court grant the extension of time and allow the motion for summary judgment filed on April 14,

19

2017, to remain filed. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming his

20

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, filed on May 30, 2017, timely filed. Plaintiff

21

has no objection to allowing additional time for Defendant to file a reply to the opposition.

22

Based on the parties’ representations, the court finds good cause to grant both parties’

23

motions for extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming Defendant Adair’s motion for summary

24

judgment and Plaintiff’s opposition timely filed. Defendant Adair shall be granted thirty days

25

in which to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

26

///

27
28

1

This defendant was named in the complaint as Correctional Officer Perez.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

judgment, filed on May 5, 2017, is granted nunc pro tunc;
2.

6
7

3.

Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file his opposition to the motion for
summary judgment, filed on May 12, 2017, is granted nun pro tunc;

4.

10
11

Defendant Adair’s motion for summary judgment, filed on April 14, 2017, is
deemed timely filed;

8
9

Defendant Adair’s motion for extension of time to file her motion for summary

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant Adair’s motion for summary judgment, filed
on May 30, 2017, is deemed timely filed; and

5.

Defendant Adair is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in
which to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 28, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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