Daniels v. Tolson, et al.

Filing 117

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 116 Objections to Defendant's Request for Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/5/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

STU SHERMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
[ECF No. 116]

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels III is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 22, 2017, Defendant filed a request for an extension of time to file a reply to

20

Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 114.) On the basis of good cause, the Court granted Defendant’s

21

motion on May 23, 2017, and extended the time to file a reply to June 26, 2017. (ECF No. 115.)

22

On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendant’s request for an extension of time to

23

file a reply. (ECF No. 116.) Plaintiff argues that to grant Defendant an extension of time to file a

24

reply would prejudice this action because Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be

25

denied as there are substantial issues to be presented at trial.

26

The fact that Plaintiff believes Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be denied

27

does not present a sufficient basis to object to an extension of time to file a reply to his opposition.

28

Inasmuch as Defendant presented good cause to extend the time to file a reply to Plaintiff’s
1

1

voluminous opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s

2

motion for an extension of time is OVERRULED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

June 5, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2