McCoy v. Garikaparthi et al

Filing 38

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 02/03/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
LAKEITH L. McCOY,
12
13
v.
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-01495 BAM (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

M. GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

16

(ECF No. 37)
Defendants.

17
Plaintiff LaKeith L. McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on

20

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Garikaparthi, Steiber, Keeler and Chavez

21

for violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights arising from the alleged deprivation of

22

adequate food.
On January 20, 2016, this Court granted Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file

23
24

a responsive pleading, until February 18, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) The Court found that Defendants

25

showed good cause for the requested extension based, in part, on Defense Counsel’s busy

26

schedule, and specifically found that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a short, reasonable

27

extension.

28

///
1

1

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ request for an extension

2

of time, filed January 27, 2016, and dated January 22, 2016. (ECF No. 37.) This filing and the

3

Court’s January 20, 2016 order likely passed in the mail. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request

4

for an extension of time, arguing that instead Defendants should be forced to find some substitute

5

counsel to defend them in this matter. Plaintiff also asserts that Defense Counsel is not acting in

6

good faith because some other California Deputy Attorney General in an unrelated case he is

7

litigating also requested an extension of time to file a responsive pleading based on similar

8

circumstances as Defense Counsel in this action. Finally, Plaintiff states that he is prejudiced by

9

any delay in this action because he has not yet been granted the ultimate relief he seeks here.

10

Nothing in Plaintiff’s opposition causes the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. Plaintiff has

11

not shown that Defense Counsel here has acted in bad faith, nor has he shown any prejudice to

12

him, as this case is moving forward within a reasonable period of time.

13
14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections
and the January 20, 2016 order stands.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 3, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2