Perrotte v. Johnson et al

Filing 90

ORDER Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 86 Motion for a Court Order to Serve Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's 88 Requests for an Extension of Time to File an Opposition signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/21/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
STACEY JOHNSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER TO SERVE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE AN OPPOSITION
[ECF Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89]

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court order Defendants to serve a

20

copy of their motion for summary judgment filed on May 5, 2017. On this same date, Defendants

21

filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

22

On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to

23

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2017, Defendants filed an

24

opposition.

25

On May 5, 2017, Defendants Stacey Johnson and Jean LeFlore filed a motion for summary

26

judgment. On June 1, 2017, Defendants filed a declaration in lieu of a reply because Plaintiff did not

27

file an opposition.

28
1

1

In his June 20, 2017, motion, Plaintiff contends that he never received a copy of Defendants’

2

motion for summary judgment. Defendants submit and attached a proof of service to the motion for

3

summary judgment demonstrating that Plaintiff was properly served at his address of record. (ECF

4

Nos. 79, 81-85, 87.) Defendants further submit that on June 20, 2017, at the request of Plaintiff, they

5

forwarded Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the motion for summary judgment on.
In his July 20, 2017, motion, Plaintiff indicates that he has now received a copy of Defendants’

6
7

motion for summary judgment and requests an extension of time to file an opposition.
Although the record does support Defendants’ contention that their motion for summary

8
9

judgment was properly served on Plaintiff at his address of record, given that Plaintiff is proceeding

10

pro se and is incarcerated, the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to

11

Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

14

summary judgment is denied as moot; and
2.

15
16

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order providing him a copy of Defendants’ motion for

Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

20

July 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2