Ivan Lee Matthews v. Liles et al

Filing 31

ORDER Overruling 30 Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Fourth Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/23/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. LILES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00083-BAM (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 30)

17

On May 10, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ request to extend the time for their response

18

to Plaintiff’s amended complaint until thirty (30) days after a final ruling on their motion for an order

19

revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (“three-strike motion”). (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff objects to

20

the order granting the extension, arguing that Defendants’ three-strike motion is insufficient. (ECF No.

21

30.) Plaintiff specifically argues that certain of his cases which were dismissed did not “count” as

22

strikes under the PLRA. Plaintiff further argues that he is prejudiced here by undue delay and by being

23

required to respond to Defendants’ three-strike motion. Concurrently with these objections, Plaintiff

24

filed a motion to deny the three-strike motion.

25

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. The Court takes no position on the merits of Defendants’

26

three-strike motion or Plaintiff’s motion to deny the three-strike motion at this time. However, as the

27

Court previously explained, judicial economy is best served by considering Defendants’ three-strike

28

motion, which may result in a dismissal without prejudice of this action, before expending further
1

1

resources managing this litigation. Should Defendants’ motion be denied, Plaintiff will not be

2

prejudiced by the brief delay in litigation caused by the briefing and evaluation of the three-strike

3

motion.

4
5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the order granting Defendants’ request for an extension
of time to respond to the amended complaint, (ECF No. 30), are OVERRULED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 23, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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