Shehee v. Ahlin et al

Filing 102

ORDER Granting In Part Plaintiff's Third 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request for In-Person Hearing 99 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/15/19. 7-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
PAMELA AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Case No. 1:14-cv-00005-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 96)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR IN-PERSON HEARING
(ECF No. 99)

18
19

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a former civil detainee proceeding pro se and

20

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

21

on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Nguyen and Estate of J. Tur for

22

inadequate medical care arising from events occurring prior to Plaintiff’s surgery in April 2014,

23

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

24

On January 10, 2019, the Court directed Defendants to re-serve courtesy copies of several

25

filings and pending motions on Plaintiff at his current address of record. This included the

26

pending motion for summary judgment, filed September 28, 2018. (ECF No. 85.) Accordingly,

27

Defendants filed proof of the re-service on January 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 86, 87.) Following two

28

extensions of time, Plaintiff’s opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment was due
1

1

on or before May 8, 2019. (ECF Nos. 92, 97.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 8,

2

2019 “Notice of Extraordinary Circumstances,” which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s third

3

motion for an extension of time to file his opposition.1 (ECF No. 98.) On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff

4

filed a request to appear in-person before the Court, (ECF No. 99), and on May 14, 2019, Plaintiff

5

filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment and a response to the Court’s April 1,

6

2019 order to show cause, (ECF Nos. 100, 101). Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to

7

file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, but the Court finds a response is

8

unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

9

In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff states that on April 26, 2019, his documents

10

were stolen inside the Lancaster County Public Library, which has hindered him in preparing his

11

opposition. Plaintiff states that on May 8, 2019, he will be going to the United States District

12

Court in Fresno to get copies of documents from the Clerk’s Office. Plaintiff therefore requests a

13

thirty-day extension of time to prepare his opposition, and states that he intends to prosecute this

14

action. (ECF No. 98.)

15

As noted above, Plaintiff submitted his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment on May 14, 2019. (ECF No. 100.) Having considered the moving papers, the Court

17

finds good cause to grant, in part, the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As the

18

Court received Plaintiff’s opposition on May 14, 2019, the extension of time is granted, up to and

19

including May 14, 2019. Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition is accepted as timely filed.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request regarding an in-person appearance, and for the Court to

20
21

order Defendants to appear for a hearing, the request is denied. There is currently no hearing

22

scheduled regarding any issues in this action, and Plaintiff has not presented any reason why such

23

a hearing is necessary at this time. To the extent Plaintiff is again arguing that a jury trial is

24

necessary and warranted in this action, the request remains premature, as the Court has not yet

25

ruled on the pending motion for summary judgment.
Regarding Plaintiff’s response and objection to the Court’s order to show cause, the Court

26
27

Although not docketed until May 13, 2019, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion was stamped as received and
filed on May 8, 2019. Therefore, the motion is timely.
1

28

2

1

notes that the order to show cause was discharged by the Court’s April 5, 2019 order. As Plaintiff

2

has now filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, this action will not be

3

dismissed for failure to prosecute.

4
5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s third motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 98), is GRANTED IN PART, as
discussed above;

7

2. Plaintiff’s request for an in-person hearing, (ECF No. 99), is DENIED; and

8

3. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, within seven (7) days from the date Plaintiff’s

9

opposition was filed in CM/ECF. Local Rule 230(l).

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 15, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3