Gilmore v. Augustus, et al.

Filing 126

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motions For Extension Of Time Nunc Pro Tunc (Docs. 101 , 103 ; also resolves Doc. 119 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/4/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
NUNC PRO TUNC
(Docs. 101, 103; also resolves Doc. 119.)

Plaintiff,

8
9

1:12-cv-00925-LJO-GSA-PC

C. DWAYNE GILMORE,

vs.
D. AUGUSTUS, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12

I.

BACKGROUND

13

C. Dwayne Gilmore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

14

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

15

commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First

16

Amended Complaint filed on March 8, 2013, against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) C.

17

Lockard, C/O C. Lopez, C/O J. Hightower, and C/O J. J. Torres for excessive force, and against

18

defendant C/O J. J. Torres for denial of adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment.1 (Doc. 12.)

20

On April 25, 2014, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, establishing

21

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of December 25, 2014 for the completion

22

of discovery, and a deadline of March 5, 2015, for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions.

23

(Doc. 36.) The deadlines have now expired.

24
25
26
27
28

1
On November 18, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants
from this action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) Defendants Lieutenant D. Augustus, Sergeant J. S. Diaz,
Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) A. Serna, LVN B. Ismat, LVN I. Bari, LVN J. Canada, LVN Z. Nartume, and
John Doe were dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state any claims against them upon which
relief may be granted under §1983, and Plaintiff=s claims based on supervisory liability and claims for conspiracy
and violation of due process were dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983.
(Id.)

1

1

On December 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed two motions to modify the Discovery and

2

Scheduling Order. (Docs. 101, 103.)

3

extension of time to file oppositions to Defendants’ motion to strike and motion to compel.

4

II.

The court construes these motions as motions for

Plaintiff’s First Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 101.)

5

In his first motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an opposition to

6

Defendants’ motion to strike of December 11, 2014. On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his

7

opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike. (Doc. 106.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s

8

motion shall be granted nun pro tunc.

9

III.

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 103.)

10

In his second motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an opposition to

11

Defendants’ motion to compel of December 8, 2014. On January 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed his

12

opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel. (Doc. 105.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s

13

motion shall be granted nun pro tunc.

14

IV.

CONCLUSION

15

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’

17

motion to strike is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and Plaintiff’s opposition to the

18

motion to strike, filed on January 26, 2015, is deemed timely filed; and

19

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’

20

motion to compel is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and Plaintiff’s opposition to the

21

motion to compel, filed on January 14, 2015, is deemed timely filed.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2